The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Deadeye on July 22, 2022, 08:39:53 AM
-
One of my best friends got the opportunity to drive a Porsche across Antarctica.
He didn't see any walls.
What's that about?
-
911 or a Taycan?
-
One of my best friends got the opportunity to drive a Porsche across Antarctica.
He didn't see any walls.
What's that about?
Some believe an icewall surround the earth. Some of those might say this is one of them:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1kukj2g8cI8/VXvwoTo5u-I/AAAAAAAAP0o/I8vCHjoUC1w/s1600/ice-sheet-120509.jpg)
It is unlikely that he would see the wall if he cut through a section of the antarctic. Though this entire story sounds contrived and fallacious.
-
One of my best friends got the opportunity to drive a Porsche across Antarctica.
He didn't see any walls.
What's that about?
Some believe an icewall surround the earth. Some of those might say this is one of them:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1kukj2g8cI8/VXvwoTo5u-I/AAAAAAAAP0o/I8vCHjoUC1w/s1600/ice-sheet-120509.jpg)
It is unlikely that he would see the wall if he cut through a section of the antarctic. Though this entire story sounds contrived and fallacious.
The lengths of BS globe earthers have to resort to really says all you need to know about how shaky even they think the globe earth idea is. I mean, if it were so clear cut and provable, why wouldn't they start with that in their argument and not the ridiculous claims made here?
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
That is not a Porsche. That's now just a shell. I had one of those pissy looking Smart ForTwo cars that could outrun that. And that could be in Australias snowy mountains for all we know
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/E83F/production/_108155495_fb9e6aaf-af17-4ef2-ad24-6afcb32bf7b0.jpg)
Australia
-
That is not a Porsche. That's now just a shell.
What constitutes something being a Porsche?
And that could be in Australias snowy mountains for all we know
Could be, but evidence shows otherwise:
(https://i.imgur.com/MVriMXR.jpg)
-
That is not a Porsche. That's now just a shell.
What constitutes something being a Porsche?
Are you really going to ship of theseus this?
-
One of my best friends got the opportunity to drive a Porsche across Antarctica.
He didn't see any walls.
What's that about?
Some believe an icewall surround the earth. Some of those might say this is one of them:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1kukj2g8cI8/VXvwoTo5u-I/AAAAAAAAP0o/I8vCHjoUC1w/s1600/ice-sheet-120509.jpg)
It is unlikely that he would see the wall if he cut through a section of the antarctic. Though this entire story sounds contrived and fallacious.
The lengths of BS globe earthers have to resort to really says all you need to know about how shaky even they think the globe earth idea is. I mean, if it were so clear cut and provable, why wouldn't they start with that in their argument and not the ridiculous claims made here?
How very true! If every single point proves us wrong, why do they again and again come to our in hordes presenting time after time after time again nonsense.
No, you can't cross Antarctica in a Porsche. Even if we take the above at its word, his "Porsche" simply cut through a peninsula.
-
One of my best friends got the opportunity to drive a Porsche across Antarctica.
He didn't see any walls.
What's that about?
Some believe an icewall surround the earth. Some of those might say this is one of them:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1kukj2g8cI8/VXvwoTo5u-I/AAAAAAAAP0o/I8vCHjoUC1w/s1600/ice-sheet-120509.jpg)
It is unlikely that he would see the wall if he cut through a section of the antarctic. Though this entire story sounds contrived and fallacious.
The lengths of BS globe earthers have to resort to really says all you need to know about how shaky even they think the globe earth idea is. I mean, if it were so clear cut and provable, why wouldn't they start with that in their argument and not the ridiculous claims made here?
How very true! If every single point proves us wrong, why do they again and again come to our in hordes presenting time after time after time again nonsense.
No, you can't cross Antarctica in a Porsche. Even if we take the above at its word, his "Porsche" simply cut through a peninsula.
Correct, she only went 356 miles somewhere in the Union Glacier area. Maybe drove in circles, don't know.
356 miles gets you about nowhere considering the size of Antarctica, certainly not "across".
(https://i.imgur.com/RNEyz52.png)
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
Yep, my mate is the one with the beard in the middle. Ex rally driver and FIA Porsche rally car builder.
Didn’t see any walls, apart from inside the cafeteria building which also wasn’t built on a wall.
How many of the FE weirdos can say they actually went there?
-
Photos suggests millions of penguins. How did your supposed mate pass all of them?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYcUOLBQPGhtle29hllCbhxQwv_ZEtvytCJjzijr6zKXXdVClxQFKqe9s&s=10)
Penguins are amongst the most disgusting creatures in the world. They will f&#k anything with a hole, including chicks or dead animals. They are also blood thirsty and will kill anything they don't like without remorse.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6nNAm5pAomBV3c3PEhbtQ34qNQJckjdKxKA&usqp=CAU)
Probably just killed something. Or someone....
-
Some believe an icewall surround the earth. Some of those might say this is one of them:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1kukj2g8cI8/VXvwoTo5u-I/AAAAAAAAP0o/I8vCHjoUC1w/s1600/ice-sheet-120509.jpg)
Most walls that surround something don't end so abruptly.
Are you sure it isn't the rest of Earth surrounding the icewall of Antarctica?
-
I can drive 356 miles in Florida and never see the ocean. Does this mean the ocean doesn't exist?
-
That is not a Porsche. That's now just a shell.
What constitutes something being a Porsche?
Are you really going to ship of theseus this?
Yes.
-
I can drive 356 miles in Florida and never see the ocean. Does this mean the ocean doesn't exist?
Of course not. But I'm pretty sure we possess the technology to get over a wall of ice that's a couple of hundred feet tall to see what's on the other side.
-
Photos suggests millions of penguins. How did your supposed mate pass all of them?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYcUOLBQPGhtle29hllCbhxQwv_ZEtvytCJjzijr6zKXXdVClxQFKqe9s&s=10)
Penguins are amongst the most disgusting creatures in the world. They will f&#k anything with a hole, including chicks or dead animals. They are also blood thirsty and will kill anything they don't like without remorse.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6nNAm5pAomBV3c3PEhbtQ34qNQJckjdKxKA&usqp=CAU)
Probably just killed something. Or someone....
A, that photo is clearly fake
B, Antarctica is a massive area just like the arctic Not a fucking wall of ice only a few hundred feet high. I could fly a kite over it, what would happen to the kite?
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
Yep, my mate is the one with the beard in the middle. Ex rally driver and FIA Porsche rally car builder.
Didn’t see any walls, apart from inside the cafeteria building which also wasn’t built on a wall.
How many of the FE weirdos can say they actually went there?
I went there and was denied access to the mainland. At the time I posted here and the administration (I wasn't always president) verified my IP was in the location in question. I also mailed one of the moderators a postcard from Punta Arenas.
Given the map above of their trip, why would you expect him to see a wall?
I have a hunch you are just another anonymous internet guy that claims to know the Antarctic equivalent of Neil Armstrong.
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
Yep, my mate is the one with the beard in the middle. Ex rally driver and FIA Porsche rally car builder.
Didn’t see any walls, apart from inside the cafeteria building which also wasn’t built on a wall.
How many of the FE weirdos can say they actually went there?
Apparently your bearded buddy was on the forbidden side of the wall.
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
Yep, my mate is the one with the beard in the middle. Ex rally driver and FIA Porsche rally car builder.
Didn’t see any walls, apart from inside the cafeteria building which also wasn’t built on a wall.
How many of the FE weirdos can say they actually went there?
I went there and was denied access to the mainland. At the time I posted here and the administration (I wasn't always president) verified my IP was in the location in question. I also mailed one of the moderators a postcard from Punta Arenas.
Given the map above of their trip, why would you expect him to see a wall?
Erm, because you lot say Antarctica is a wall of ice surrounding a flat earth maybe? Not the huge continent that it really is.
-
B, Antarctica is a massive area just like the arctic Not a fucking wall of ice only a few hundred feet high. I could fly a kite over it, what would happen to the kite?
Go fly a kite over it and let us know.
-
B, Antarctica is a massive area just like the arctic Not a fucking wall of ice only a few hundred feet high. I could fly a kite over it, what would happen to the kite?
Go fly a kite over it and let us know.
There is no wall.
-
There are walls of ice in some places around Antarctica. But our main base there at McMurdo is wall-less and accessible via plane or boat.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/07/14/climate/mcmurdo/mcmurdo-superJumbo-v4.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp)(https://www.coolantarctica.com/Bases/McMurdo/mcmurdo1.jpg)
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
Yep, my mate is the one with the beard in the middle. Ex rally driver and FIA Porsche rally car builder.
Didn’t see any walls, apart from inside the cafeteria building which also wasn’t built on a wall.
How many of the FE weirdos can say they actually went there?
I went there and was denied access to the mainland. At the time I posted here and the administration (I wasn't always president) verified my IP was in the location in question. I also mailed one of the moderators a postcard from Punta Arenas.
Given the map above of their trip, why would you expect him to see a wall?
Erm, because you lot say Antarctica is a wall of ice surrounding a flat earth maybe? Not the huge continent that it really is.
So you would expect them to see a wall that they travel nowhere near?
-
Looks like they probably made landfall at maybe McMurdo Station and Porche'd their way up to Union Glacier.
Here are all of the stations down there, various countries staking out their areas of interest:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Antarctica_Station_Map.png)
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
Yep, my mate is the one with the beard in the middle. Ex rally driver and FIA Porsche rally car builder.
Didn’t see any walls, apart from inside the cafeteria building which also wasn’t built on a wall.
How many of the FE weirdos can say they actually went there?
I went there and was denied access to the mainland. At the time I posted here and the administration (I wasn't always president) verified my IP was in the location in question. I also mailed one of the moderators a postcard from Punta Arenas.
Given the map above of their trip, why would you expect him to see a wall?
Erm, because you lot say Antarctica is a wall of ice surrounding a flat earth maybe? Not the huge continent that it really is.
So you would expect them to see a wall that they travel nowhere near?
Is Antarctica a wall or not, make your mind up.
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
That is not a Porsche. That's now just a shell. I had one of those pissy looking Smart ForTwo cars that could outrun that. And that could be in Australias snowy mountains for all we know
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/E83F/production/_108155495_fb9e6aaf-af17-4ef2-ad24-6afcb32bf7b0.jpg)
Australia
Actually, it is a Porsche. If you take the tracks and sleds off and put wheels back on, it's a genuine 1956 356 with genuine parts and worth a lot of money.
Seems you chaps just can't handle the truth.
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
Yep, my mate is the one with the beard in the middle. Ex rally driver and FIA Porsche rally car builder.
Didn’t see any walls, apart from inside the cafeteria building which also wasn’t built on a wall.
How many of the FE weirdos can say they actually went there?
I went there and was denied access to the mainland. At the time I posted here and the administration (I wasn't always president) verified my IP was in the location in question. I also mailed one of the moderators a postcard from Punta Arenas.
Given the map above of their trip, why would you expect him to see a wall?
I have a hunch you are just another anonymous internet guy that claims to know the Antarctic equivalent of Neil Armstrong.
So that's a no then?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions#21st_century
Here is a list of people who have crossed Antarctica that we know of.
https://abenteuer-berg.de/en/anja-blacha-after-south-pole-expedition-other-challenges-than-on-8000ers/
This 26 year old woman did it solo.
You would think at least one of them would have seen this ice wall.
Talking about seeing stuff.
Half of flat earth proponents only believe in direct evidence they can see for themselves. And considering that no one has seen this Antarctic wall, you would think it would have fallen out of favour by now.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions#21st_century
Here is a list of people who have crossed Antarctica that we know of.
https://abenteuer-berg.de/en/anja-blacha-after-south-pole-expedition-other-challenges-than-on-8000ers/
This 26 year old woman did it solo.
You would think at least one of them would have seen this ice wall.
Talking about seeing stuff.
Half of flat earth proponents only believe in direct evidence they can see for themselves. And considering that no one has seen this Antarctic wall, you would think it would have fallen out of favour by now.
What do they normally say? "Oh it's because of heat" ;D
-
According to this guess as to what the flat earth looks like, assuming the circumference of earth is not in dispute, Antarctica is 24873 miles long.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flat_earth.png/220px-Flat_earth.png)
Earth diameter: 7917.5117 miles
Radius: 3958.75585
So the continent of Antarctica is 3.1 times as long as the earth's diameter.
-
MayonnaiseWolf only pretends to be a round earther.
-
According to this guess as to what the flat earth looks like, assuming the circumference of earth is not in dispute, Antarctica is 24873 miles long.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flat_earth.png/220px-Flat_earth.png)
Earth diameter: 7917.5117 miles
Radius: 3958.75585
So the continent of Antarctica is 3.1 times as long as the earth's diameter.
Dude check your math and assumptions before posting.
If the Earth was flat and a pizza, then it's circumference would be 49000 miles ish.
2 pi r. Not sorta pi r.
-
According to this guess as to what the flat earth looks like, assuming the circumference of earth is not in dispute, Antarctica is 24873 miles long.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flat_earth.png/220px-Flat_earth.png)
Earth diameter: 7917.5117 miles
Radius: 3958.75585
So the continent of Antarctica is 3.1 times as long as the earth's diameter.
Dude check your math and assumptions before posting.
If the Earth was flat and a pizza, then it's circumference would be 49000 miles ish.
2 pi r. Not sorta pi r.
Yep, missed the square when changing to miles from km.
7 times longer :)
-
MayonnaiseWolf only pretends to be a round earther.
I believe in a Flat Earth and Space travel.
I also dont see any problems with holding these 2 beliefs.
:)
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
Yep, my mate is the one with the beard in the middle. Ex rally driver and FIA Porsche rally car builder.
Didn’t see any walls, apart from inside the cafeteria building which also wasn’t built on a wall.
How many of the FE weirdos can say they actually went there?
I went there and was denied access to the mainland. At the time I posted here and the administration (I wasn't always president) verified my IP was in the location in question. I also mailed one of the moderators a postcard from Punta Arenas.
Given the map above of their trip, why would you expect him to see a wall?
Erm, because you lot say Antarctica is a wall of ice surrounding a flat earth maybe? Not the huge continent that it really is.
So you would expect them to see a wall that they travel nowhere near?
Is Antarctica a wall or not, make your mind up.
No one (that I know of) holds Antarctica is a wall.
Some hold there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic.
The path traveled goes nowhere near where those who hold there is a wall say it is. You seem to expect going no where near an object you'd be able to see that object. That's pretty silly, even for a globe trotter.
-
Some hold there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic.
For those some who hold that there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic, apparently these folks were able to get a modified porsche over said wall and cat-track around a portion of Antarctica.
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
Yep, my mate is the one with the beard in the middle. Ex rally driver and FIA Porsche rally car builder.
Didn’t see any walls, apart from inside the cafeteria building which also wasn’t built on a wall.
How many of the FE weirdos can say they actually went there?
I went there and was denied access to the mainland. At the time I posted here and the administration (I wasn't always president) verified my IP was in the location in question. I also mailed one of the moderators a postcard from Punta Arenas.
Given the map above of their trip, why would you expect him to see a wall?
Erm, because you lot say Antarctica is a wall of ice surrounding a flat earth maybe? Not the huge continent that it really is.
So you would expect them to see a wall that they travel nowhere near?
Is Antarctica a wall or not, make your mind up.
No one (that I know of) holds Antarctica is a wall.
Some hold there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic.
The path traveled goes nowhere near where those who hold there is a wall say it is. You seem to expect going no where near an object you'd be able to see that object. That's pretty silly, even for a globe trotter.
Antarctica being a wall of ice is one of your primary explanations for flat earth!
We now know Antarctica is nearly 50,000 mile long according to your rules! Pretty difficult to miss something that big.
-
Antarctica being a wall of ice is definitely not Username's primary explanation for flat earth.
-
So now it's not a wall.
Make your minds up.
-
No one (that I know of) holds Antarctica is a wall.
Some hold there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic.
The path traveled goes nowhere near where those who hold there is a wall say it is. You seem to expect going no where near an object you'd be able to see that object. That's pretty silly, even for a globe trotter.
people have traveled Antartica pretty thouroughly. Crossed it from every direction by now.
You have not actually said what you believe, which is fair. But I have met some dozens of flatties that think either
A) You cant actually get to antartica due to CIA snipers or something
B) There is an actual wall at antartica, althought they did not say if it was antartica itself, or at the "outskirts" of it . . which would be the center of a round earth S Pole.
Geometrically speaking, if the pole was an actual physical tall pole, and you extended it in the way a typical Flat Earth Maps, displays, then that pole would display as a wall a couple of thousand Km long. So maybe thats what they are talking about?
According to this guess as to what the flat earth looks like, assuming the circumference of earth is not in dispute, Antarctica is 24873 miles long.
If the wall was gaurded by snipers, you would beed about 30 000 snipers sitting along the length of the wall. Then another spotter for each one. And maybe give them 8 hour shifts, we now have 180 000 snipers and spotters, one station every mile.
You may need a team of chefs, kitchens, medical ext to keep them alive. So another 10 000 or so. 200 000 personelle to gaurd the wall.
mmm. . . maybe it will be easier with missile or artillary systems, the only issue is, radar does not easily pick up people with little equipment, so anyone can ski past. But if you have one missile or canon every 100miles, you can do better with 250 stations. Artillary needs about 6 persons per canon, and radar is about the same. 3 shifts times 250 stations is much better at 9000 soldiers.
So maybe the CIA or whoever can gaurd the wall with 10 000 soldiers. Im sure they are trustworthy and will never speak out about their time camping at negative 30'C for months on end.
-
No one (that I know of) holds Antarctica is a wall.
Some hold there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic.
The path traveled goes nowhere near where those who hold there is a wall say it is. You seem to expect going no where near an object you'd be able to see that object. That's pretty silly, even for a globe trotter.
people have traveled Antartica pretty thouroughly. Crossed it from every direction by now.
You have not actually said what you believe, which is fair. But I have met some dozens of flatties that think either
A) You cant actually get to antartica due to CIA snipers or something
B) There is an actual wall at antartica, althought they did not say if it was antartica itself, or at the "outskirts" of it . . which would be the center of a round earth S Pole.
Geometrically speaking, if the pole was an actual physical tall pole, and you extended it in the way a typical Flat Earth Maps, displays, then that pole would display as a wall a couple of thousand Km long. So maybe thats what they are talking about?
According to this guess as to what the flat earth looks like, assuming the circumference of earth is not in dispute, Antarctica is 24873 miles long.
If the wall was gaurded by snipers, you would beed about 30 000 snipers sitting along the length of the wall. Then another spotter for each one. And maybe give them 8 hour shifts, we now have 180 000 snipers and spotters, one station every mile.
You may need a team of chefs, kitchens, medical ext to keep them alive. So another 10 000 or so. 200 000 personelle to gaurd the wall.
mmm. . . maybe it will be easier with missile or artillary systems, the only issue is, radar does not easily pick up people with little equipment, so anyone can ski past. But if you have one missile or canon every 100miles, you can do better with 250 stations. Artillary needs about 6 persons per canon, and radar is about the same. 3 shifts times 250 stations is much better at 9000 soldiers.
So maybe the CIA or whoever can gaurd the wall with 10 000 soldiers. Im sure they are trustworthy and will never speak out about their time camping at negative 30'C for months on end.
Question is, what are they supposed to be guarding it for/from!?
In case you go over the edge and suffocate? ;D
-
Question is, what are they supposed to be guarding it for/from!?
In case you go over the edge and suffocate? ;D
No idea, no one gets that far. The point is no one gets to see the edge, because its protected by 10s of thousands of military soldiers who all made a pinky promise not to tell anyone. Alternatively, there is no wall or edge as hundreds of people who have trekked through the south pole can attest to.
-
Question is, what are they supposed to be guarding it for/from!?
In case you go over the edge and suffocate? ;D
No idea, no one gets that far. The point is no one gets to see the edge, because its protected by 10s of thousands of military soldiers who all made a pinky promise not to tell anyone. Alternatively, there is no wall or edge as hundreds of people who have trekked through the south pole can attest to.
Seems we all agreed there wouldn't be any military activity in Antarctica: https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/the-antarctic-treaty-explained/
Not sure how Russia would react knowing the US military were there and they're not!
-
Some hold there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic.
For those some who hold that there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic, apparently these folks were able to get a modified porsche over said wall and cat-track around a portion of Antarctica.
I'm not sure you've thought out what you've said here. If its around the antarctic it would have to be inland and thus one wouldn't have to get a "porsche" over it.
-
I guess his friend is Renee Brinkerhoff:
Blizzards, Breakdowns and Blue Ice: How a ’50s-Era Porsche Conquered Antarctica (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/vehicles/1956-porsche-antarctica-renee-brinkerhoff)
Renée Brinkerhoff completed her goal of driving a Porsche 356 on all seven continents
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
But on December 10, race car driver Renée Brinkerhoff and her Valkyrie Racing team completed a harrowing 356-mile trek across the blue ice of Union Glacier in a 1956 Porsche 356 A, conquering their goal of racing on all seven continents of the globe in one car.
Yep, my mate is the one with the beard in the middle. Ex rally driver and FIA Porsche rally car builder.
Didn’t see any walls, apart from inside the cafeteria building which also wasn’t built on a wall.
How many of the FE weirdos can say they actually went there?
I went there and was denied access to the mainland. At the time I posted here and the administration (I wasn't always president) verified my IP was in the location in question. I also mailed one of the moderators a postcard from Punta Arenas.
Given the map above of their trip, why would you expect him to see a wall?
Erm, because you lot say Antarctica is a wall of ice surrounding a flat earth maybe? Not the huge continent that it really is.
So you would expect them to see a wall that they travel nowhere near?
Is Antarctica a wall or not, make your mind up.
No one (that I know of) holds Antarctica is a wall.
Some hold there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic.
The path traveled goes nowhere near where those who hold there is a wall say it is. You seem to expect going no where near an object you'd be able to see that object. That's pretty silly, even for a globe trotter.
Antarctica being a wall of ice is one of your primary explanations for flat earth!
No, it's not.
We now know Antarctica is nearly 50,000 mile long according to your rules! Pretty difficult to miss something that big.
Air is not perfectly transparent.
-
No one (that I know of) holds Antarctica is a wall.
Some hold there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic.
The path traveled goes nowhere near where those who hold there is a wall say it is. You seem to expect going no where near an object you'd be able to see that object. That's pretty silly, even for a globe trotter.
people have traveled Antartica pretty thouroughly. Crossed it from every direction by now.
You have not actually said what you believe, which is fair. But I have met some dozens of flatties that think either
A) You cant actually get to antartica due to CIA snipers or something
B) There is an actual wall at antartica, althought they did not say if it was antartica itself, or at the "outskirts" of it . . which would be the center of a round earth S Pole.
Geometrically speaking, if the pole was an actual physical tall pole, and you extended it in the way a typical Flat Earth Maps, displays, then that pole would display as a wall a couple of thousand Km long. So maybe thats what they are talking about?
According to this guess as to what the flat earth looks like, assuming the circumference of earth is not in dispute, Antarctica is 24873 miles long.
If the wall was gaurded by snipers, you would beed about 30 000 snipers sitting along the length of the wall. Then another spotter for each one. And maybe give them 8 hour shifts, we now have 180 000 snipers and spotters, one station every mile.
You may need a team of chefs, kitchens, medical ext to keep them alive. So another 10 000 or so. 200 000 personelle to gaurd the wall.
mmm. . . maybe it will be easier with missile or artillary systems, the only issue is, radar does not easily pick up people with little equipment, so anyone can ski past. But if you have one missile or canon every 100miles, you can do better with 250 stations. Artillary needs about 6 persons per canon, and radar is about the same. 3 shifts times 250 stations is much better at 9000 soldiers.
So maybe the CIA or whoever can gaurd the wall with 10 000 soldiers. Im sure they are trustworthy and will never speak out about their time camping at negative 30'C for months on end.
Question is, what are they supposed to be guarding it for/from!?
If those that believed in guards knew that, the guards wouldn't be very good now, would they?
-
If the wall was gaurded by snipers, you would beed about 30 000 snipers sitting along the length of the wall. Then another spotter for each one. And maybe give them 8 hour shifts, we now have 180 000 snipers and spotters, one station every mile.
You may need a team of chefs, kitchens, medical ext to keep them alive. So another 10 000 or so. 200 000 personelle to gaurd the wall.
mmm. . . maybe it will be easier with missile or artillary systems, the only issue is, radar does not easily pick up people with little equipment, so anyone can ski past. But if you have one missile or canon every 100miles, you can do better with 250 stations. Artillary needs about 6 persons per canon, and radar is about the same. 3 shifts times 250 stations is much better at 9000 soldiers.
So maybe the CIA or whoever can gaurd the wall with 10 000 soldiers. Im sure they are trustworthy and will never speak out about their time camping at negative 30'C for months on end.
I believe it has been previously calculated as follows. Also there was a military presence in the Antarctic by the Russians and they seemed to get along with it fine.
The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
...
*UPDATED*
Ice Wall Guarding:
If you would take note of Erasmus's calculations as far as guards go:
Supposing for a moment that the government does guard it solely by posting men on it, these men are 150 in the air. From that hight they can see at least 15 miles in every relevant direction (this of course is calculating using the RE model... on a FE they might see farther). Thus you can cover the whole wall with just 78,225/30 = 2608 men.
You can decrease it further by giving them snowmobiles and having them ride between waypoints. If they can ride 10 mph and still keep an eye on things, then in one hour one sixth the previous number -- or 652 men -- can cover the wall in an hour. In fact, doing this gives them better coverage, since this way their 15-mile-radius field of vision doesn't have any holes.
Now take the terrain into account -- much of the Ice Wall is probably unapproachable except by air -- and you can trim down the numbers even further.
Strategically locate some helicopter pads (on the wall or floating) and you can have heavy armament on the scene in thirty minutes. Assuming an Apache helicopter can fly 150 mph, in that time they could fly 75 miles, so we would need to place pads every 150 miles, requiring 521 pads. Obviously, if you don't insist on thirty-minute response time, you can do with fewer. Don't forget that the watchmen can see 15 miles away from the wall, so thirty minutes should be more than enough to intercept any boat that tries to approach, snap pictures, and sail to safety.
Of course, this is all assuming that the only means our governments have of detecting trespassers is by looking with their eyes. We're neglecting radar and high-altitude spyplanes, probably with infrared cameras.
We're also neglecting intelligence. Anybody who wants to travel to the ice wall has to leave from someplace, and these someplaces can be watched by agents as well. There aren't too many good places to set on on such a journey from. Then, such expeditions would also have to be planned, and agents could get words about them before they even start. Once they've started, agents could monitor radio transmissions. If they can discover tresspassers a thousand miles away instead of only fifteen, then maybe they don't need so big a force as you say.
Now, I'm going to take this, and say that we need about one-thousand men guarding the wall, again with two shifts each, if we include cameras, infrared, radar, intelligence, and all that good stuff. This is more than I stated previously, but bear in mind that I had been very generous with the amount those men had been paid. Now, seeing as the men practically have no influence (all they do is guard an ice wall; it's not like it's probable they have a lot of friends at all, let alone ones in high places), they don't necessarily need a very grand rate of pay. Therefore I'm dropping my previous estimate to a simple one-hundred thousand dollars per person. That still leaves us with the same amount of two-million dollars to pay for every guard in the wall forces.
CONSPIRACY MONEY TOTAL = $47,000,000 USD (Forty-Million U.S. Dollars)
Second Topic:
How Does The Conspiracy Benefit?
This is not easily answered, but I've taken some insight into this and made some estimates on how the conspiracy could be making money:
Government Paychecks:
It's very possible that the conspiracy runs by just sucking money out of the government that they are underneath. Seeing as the head honchos in those governments don't have to know about the conspiracy, it'd be pretty easy to take money from the government. Also, even if the leaders DID know, it's tax money that's going into the space exploration research, so really, they'd still be pulling profit. Basically, if you chose to believe this option, the leaders of the conspiracy are taking tax money and getting filthy stinking rich off of it. Sounds like a motive to me.
Display of Power:
Some people are control freaks. Maybe they get a rush from showing that they can change everyone's mind about the true shape of the Earth.
Embarrassment:
So, the government messed up at a really bad time to mess up, and they've been pooling all of the already-angry tax-payers' money into research that eventually led to a less-than-exciting discovery: The Earth is flat. Everyone was wrong. Millions (probably billions) of dollars of money that didn't really belong to them had been basically tossed down the drain for research of the round Earth, when, in fact it was flat. So, instead of angering people and possibly even sparking a revolt of some sort, they made up some stuff. And you know how lies tend to roll and get bigger and bigger until they're inescapable? I'd say a worldwide conspiracy is that concept...to the max.
Recruitment/Faithfulness:
Similar to the one above. Maybe the future-conspirators were ashamed that they hadn't reached out to space yet, and they felt that the people were getting hasty and impatient with them, so they decided to say they did it, and qualm the welling resentment of them, so they could ACTUALLY send people into space on a later date, without a bunch of morons knocking on their doorstep asking when they would be done with their space ship. Unfortunately, they later realized that they were wrong the whole time, and therefore had to uphold the conspiracy, lest they be accused of lying, and therefore reverting the resentment to its original state.
1/2
-
Third Topic:
What If Someone Squeals?
"Yes," you say, "but what happens when someone leaks the information?"
Why You WOULD Leak Conspiracy Information:
Fame:
You officially proved that the Earth is actually flat. You'll be in history books for ages!
Money:
Interviews with every news station and every magazine ever. You'll be a huge celebrity, and as such, you'll probably be making a fair amount of cash...at least for a little while.
Peace of Mind:
It's probably tough to keep that stuff in your head without leaking some of it out every once in a while. It'd be a lot on your conscience.
Why You Would NOT Leak Conspiracy Information:
Fame:
Some people don't like being in the spotlight all that much. Paparazzi can get annoying, and even though attention may appear to be entertaining, it can get old pretty fast.
Money:
You no longer get the big fat paychecks from the conspirators. After all of the press wears out, and starts ignoring you again--meaning no more cash from interviews--you'll probably have to start working again.
Peace of Mind:
You just screwed over all of your friends, just because you wanted a few minutes of fame and a lot of cash. Congratulations.
Insanity:
If you don't have enough proof, you won't be revered as a revolutionary, you'll be revered as Patient #3562 at the local mental hospital.
Death:
While a most likely uncommon side-effect, NASA could easily kill you and say, "He died in a space shuttle accident, I swear." Honestly, by the way it seems on TV, those things are so unstable, no one would ever EVER doubt that someone died while in space due to some random accident (add a bunch of jargon and you've got an incredibly convincing reason for death).
Topic Four:
Conclusive Notes:
As you can see, the conspiracy is not only logical, but it's, in its own way, actually quite plausible. With all of these concepts in your face, it's hard to refute AT LEAST the possibility of a conspiracy covering up the shape of the Earth. If anyone wants to rebuttal, though, I gladly welcome it (in fact, I'm probably missing a lot of stuff--but hey, I'm only one guy), and I'll add more to this compendium (hence why it's a compendium).
2/2
-
No one (that I know of) holds Antarctica is a wall.
Some hold there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic.
The path traveled goes nowhere near where those who hold there is a wall say it is. You seem to expect going no where near an object you'd be able to see that object. That's pretty silly, even for a globe trotter.
people have traveled Antartica pretty thouroughly. Crossed it from every direction by now.
You have not actually said what you believe, which is fair. But I have met some dozens of flatties that think either
A) You cant actually get to antartica due to CIA snipers or something
B) There is an actual wall at antartica, althought they did not say if it was antartica itself, or at the "outskirts" of it . . which would be the center of a round earth S Pole.
Geometrically speaking, if the pole was an actual physical tall pole, and you extended it in the way a typical Flat Earth Maps, displays, then that pole would display as a wall a couple of thousand Km long. So maybe thats what they are talking about?
The theory is that they have simply again and again piece wise crossed peninsulas. Yes, others believe that guards might stop them, there is an actual wall or firmament, or that the terrain is simply too dangerous to travel across due to heat extinction the further you travel.
-
2 page post
Im glad you did not write all that, because I would have told you its a very badly thought out post.You dont simply drop individuals in -30'C inaccessable terrain with no logistics and expect them to still be alive a day later. Especially considering that these are all random poor soldiers with low pay who have most likely never seen snow before. The conspiracy would be that the US is killing a 1000 soldiers every day.
The individuals who do cross the antartic, do so after years and years of training and experiance, and you want to drop some hill billy off in the most dangerous environment on earth and think everythings going to be okay. Fuel freezes at these temperatures, meaning you just have thousands of useless snowmobiles with corpses all over the place.
Government Paychecks: Or just, you know, do what they are currently doing in normal millitary operations. No need for a grand secret conspiracy.Embarrassment: Who ever though this was a good theory has never heard of the concept of "other countries". Why would South Africa and France give a crap about American embarrasment.Recruitment/Faithfulness: Same as the previousWhat If Someone Squeals? This part is the worst. There are whistle blowers who risk their lives for a lot less. This conspiracy involves tens and thousands of more people than any other in history, yet its never leaked. Also, have you heard of "other countries!"
The theory is that they have simply again and again piece wise crossed peninsulas. Yes, others believe that guards might stop them, there is an actual wall or firmament, or that the terrain is simply too dangerous to travel across due to heat extinction the further you travel.
The theory neglects that people have crossed the antartic from one station to another. On a flat earth map, the actual bases are thousands of km away from each other. I think people would notice if they only traveled 1000km to reach a point 10 000km away.
-
Some hold there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic.
For those some who hold that there is a wall around what we call the Antarctic, apparently these folks were able to get a modified porsche over said wall and cat-track around a portion of Antarctica.
I'm not sure you've thought out what you've said here. If its around the antarctic it would have to be inland and thus one wouldn't have to get a "porsche" over it.
Wouldn't be the first time I haven't thought something through, but I don't get what you're saying. I don't understand, "If its around the antarctic it would have to be inland."
If there is an ice wall around the existing Antarctica (The continent as we know it) or it's a wall circling the flat disk with Antarctica behind it encircling the flat earth, and someone had a Porsche they wanted to race around in the Union Glacier area, which is inland, then they would have to hoist the porsche over the wall to get inland.
Red = Icewall
Green =Union Glacier
(https://i.imgur.com/fJLADtn.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/QySdwPH.jpg)
-
Wouldn't be the first time I haven't thought something through, but I don't get what you're saying. I don't understand, "If its around the antarctic it would have to be inland."
If there is an ice wall around the existing Antarctica (The continent as we know it) or it's a wall circling the flat disk with Antarctica behind it encircling the flat earth, and someone had a Porsche they wanted to race around in the Union Glacier area, which is inland, then they would have to hoist the porsche over the wall to get inland.
Red = Icewall
Green =Union Glacier
(https://i.imgur.com/fJLADtn.jpg)
He is trying to say that the wall would need to be on the other side of Antarctica, and what you have drown is on the inside of Antarctica, not around it.
-
He is trying to say that the wall would need to be on the other side of Antarctica, and what you have drown is on the inside of Antarctica, not around it.
Oh, I see. I've always been under the impression that FEr's who believe in an "ice wall" is that it prevents you going from ocean to actually set foot on Antarctica. Let alone travel inland.
-
He is trying to say that the wall would need to be on the other side of Antarctica, and what you have drown is on the inside of Antarctica, not around it.
Any joker can get a grant and go on land. It was just misfortune that didn't land the President of the Flat Earth Society there. Ours is not to wonder why.
Oh, I see. I've always been under the impression that FEr's who believe in an "ice wall" is that it prevents you going from ocean to actually set foot on Antarctica. Let alone travel inland.
This may be true of newer flat earthers. I can say by experience I saw her shore, and there is no wall preventing entry, except those made by man.
-
2 page post
Im glad you did not write all that, because I would have told you its a very badly thought out post.
I think anyone who has spent any time around the Flat Earth Society knows that we are equal parts ridiculously joking and deadly serious. After all, a spoon full of sugar.
You dont simply drop individuals in -30'C inaccessable terrain with no logistics and expect them to still be alive a day later. Especially considering that these are all random poor soldiers with low pay who have most likely never seen snow before. The conspiracy would be that the US is killing a 1000 soldiers every day.
The Russians operated a base out of the area for some time - even managed to put up their constructivist architecture around it. Supposedly it is unoccupied now. You know how the Russians value treaties.
I have to imagine what they might eat. Penguins do seem to be a fatty source of protein, and dumb enough to wander right into the mouths of hungry soldiers.
The individuals who do cross the antartic, do so after years and years of training and experiance, and you want to drop some hill billy off in the most dangerous environment on earth and think everythings going to be okay. Fuel freezes at these temperatures, meaning you just have thousands of useless snowmobiles with corpses all over the place.
You'd be surprised what the will to live might bring out of even the most common "hill billy." You are right though, traversing too far into the cold outreaches of the antarctic is certain death. There is little need for guards. Yet, this is what some argue.
Government Paychecks: Or just, you know, do what they are currently doing in normal millitary operations. No need for a grand secret conspiracy.Embarrassment: Who ever though this was a good theory has never heard of the concept of "other countries". Why would South Africa and France give a crap about American embarrasment.Recruitment/Faithfulness: Same as the previousWhat If Someone Squeals? This part is the worst. There are whistle blowers who risk their lives for a lot less. This conspiracy involves tens and thousands of more people than any other in history, yet its never leaked. Also, have you heard of "other countries!"
The theory is that they have simply again and again piece wise crossed peninsulas. Yes, others believe that guards might stop them, there is an actual wall or firmament, or that the terrain is simply too dangerous to travel across due to heat extinction the further you travel.
The theory neglects that people have crossed the antartic from one station to another. On a flat earth map, the actual bases are thousands of km away from each other. I think people would notice if they only traveled 1000km to reach a point 10 000km away.
You have never travelled far if you think you could judge distance so wisely. Even our measurements for sea travel come from dubious origins; knots. Really? There are days when you travel and you have no idea if you went forward or backwards, except for educated guess. And educated guesses are most often wrong.
Perhaps distance to satellites is not as silly as knots, or magnets. I doubt it. The truth is far more vast than we could ever hope to see. Imagine yourself in a snow storm, having to find a safe spot for shelter for days. Could you judge your footsteps North?
Of course not. Don't be foolish and present a proper argument for your views, rather than again and again bringing these sophomoric ramblings to our doors; like hordes of zombies they walk unmindlessly, torrently, and feverishly - maws drooling.
I suppose it is a matter of a lack of what they eat that afflicts them.
-
He is trying to say that the wall would need to be on the other side of Antarctica, and what you have drown is on the inside of Antarctica, not around it.
Any joker can get a grant and go on land. It was just misfortune that didn't land the President of the Flat Earth Society there. Ours is not to wonder why.
Oh, I see. I've always been under the impression that FEr's who believe in an "ice wall" is that it prevents you going from ocean to actually set foot on Antarctica. Let alone travel inland.
This may be true of newer flat earthers. I can say by experience I saw her shore, and there is no wall preventing entry, except those made by man.
So is there still a wall on the outside of Antiarctica stopping penguins from falling into space?
-
Oh, I see. I've always been under the impression that FEr's who believe in an "ice wall" is that it prevents you going from ocean to actually set foot on Antarctica. Let alone travel inland.
This may be true of newer flat earthers. I can say by experience I saw her shore, and there is no wall preventing entry, except those made by man.
What do you mean by "newer". You mean Rowbotham on forward? Parallax stated regarding Antarctica, “Human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice, extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate and becoming lost in gloom or darkness.”
Everywhere I see, the most common FE model is the AE north pole centered, Antartica as an ice wall ring around it. And the most common descriptor for the ice wall is: This ice wall serves to keep the Earth’s oceans from spilling away, and nobody knows what exists on the other side. Additionally, no one knows what's on the other side because it's guarded to contain the "secrets" beyond.
If perhaps the ringed Antarctic ice wall is actually the entirety of Antartica, then they were able to get the Porsche on top of the wall and drove around.
-
You have never travelled far if you think you could judge distance so wisely. Even our measurements for sea travel come from dubious origins; knots. Really? There are days when you travel and you have no idea if you went forward or backwards, except for educated guess. And educated guesses are most often wrong.
Perhaps distance to satellites is not as silly as knots, or magnets. I doubt it. The truth is far more vast than we could ever hope to see. Imagine yourself in a snow storm, having to find a safe spot for shelter for days. Could you judge your footsteps North?
Of course not. Don't be foolish and present a proper argument for your views, rather than again and again bringing these sophomoric ramblings to our doors; like hordes of zombies they walk unmindlessly, torrently, and feverishly - maws drooling.
I suppose it is a matter of a lack of what they eat that afflicts them.
I have traversed through mountains in snow storms at negative 20'C. And we found our way the same way people in Antarctica do, GPS. Its so accurate, I could find a cave hidden in-between trees and mountain cliffs from 50km away 2 days earlier.
You really should try one of these new modern marvels of technology
-
For those doubting Dorisses, the Porsche in quest is in America at the Quail Car Show along with my mate. Feel free to ask him if he saw any walls.
-
Amazing, no one interested in the truth as usual.
-
One of my best friends got the opportunity to drive a Porsche across Antarctica.
He didn't see any walls.
What's that about?
Okay first of all, I'm pretty sure I don't buy the claim that your friend is that loaded. This would involve shipping an already expensive car by boat to an area that you have to have special permission and pay quite a bit of money for (actually look at Antarctica visits, they are typically two types: either you are a researcher and/or with the military, or you pay alot of money to have a boat take you to Antarctica). Then there is the logistics of driving across a surface of nothing but snow and ice, and not having it suddenly shatter on him. They wouldn't let him do this in the first place. The whole story sounds like he made it up to impress you, or you made it up for the purposes of this thread.
But I'm gonna tell you something. Only one group really visits Antarctica, and it's not people with a little bit of money. It's the wealthy shadow elites that run countries. And maybe people with really high clearance in military and science.
The tourists? They visit islands about 60 S.
(https://d1e4pidl3fu268.cloudfront.net/e89aaa00-2d2d-421b-93ef-901e6a30c121/Findinglatitudeandlongitudecoordinatesonaworldmappresentation1.png)
(https://www.ergosum.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/world_map.jpg)
Notice that the line on alot of world maps seems to stretch at about the 60 degree point on both maps.
But you've forgotten something, a globe Earth follows rules of geometry.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Circle_Divided_into_degrees.svg/1200px-Circle_Divided_into_degrees.svg.png)
Just as a 2D circle follows strict guidelines for degrees, a 3D globe follows these same laws of geometry, unless you're gonna give me the copout that it's not a "real" circle. 180 degrees to the sides, 90 degrees from sides (equator) to top/bottom (poles).
...Have you noticed yet?
There are about 30 degrees being hidden on a typical map.
They boat tourists to some big iceberg, and tell them that they are exploring Antarctica. These rich rubes are too stupid to question that they are actually too far away to even see Antarctica, drive their Porsches around until they fall in ice cold water, and never get anywhere close to the wall.
It's also not a ice wall, it's a barrier to the outer world. Like this.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RefV-znzJ3M/WyAgpA1EzPI/AAAAAAAAJv0/wauvv9ZRmjsJ3SJWOJw_v3SuXci91T8zwCLcBGAs/s1600/b6otFshhUrqaBKuKLAHvhufIQOb8J-HPgGFGZZ0mEZs.jpg)
Your friend and you aren't important enough according to the elites to see the outer world.
-
There are about 30 degrees being hidden on a typical map.
I don't see anything hidden:
(https://worldmapblank.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/World-map-with-longitude-and-latitude-degrees-coordinates-.jpg.webp)
(https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w960-q80/upload/7d/c7/e9/latitude-and-longitude.png)
-
There are about 30 degrees being hidden on a typical map.
I don't see anything hidden:
(https://worldmapblank.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/World-map-with-longitude-and-latitude-degrees-coordinates-.jpg.webp)
(https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w960-q80/upload/7d/c7/e9/latitude-and-longitude.png)
No fair, you used your own map.
That's cheating!
-
They boat tourists to some big iceberg, and tell them that they are exploring Antarctica.
I was in the navy with regular working class. The green arrow leads to the coast of Asia.
(https://i.imgur.com/xnSyMmY.gif)
Not to an ice wall.
(https://i.imgur.com/h28pWyW.gif)
And we did not we make a continuous turn north to get to the west cost of Asia.
The flat earth “map” is useless for navigation if the projection is used out of context. And the flat earth map provides no tactical advantage. Name one navy that has tactical advantage because they treat the globe as flat?
-
No fair, you used your own map.
That's cheating!
I don't own any maps to cheat with so I have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Notice that the line on alot of world maps seems to stretch at about the 60 degree point on both maps.
You sure do love showing a complete lack of understanding of basically everything don't you?
The Mercator projection is made to keep angles locally correct.
What that means is that as you go away from the equator (or whatever the projection is centred on) the scale increases, in both directions.
How the scale changes can also be easily calculated (under the approximation that it is a perfect sphere).
The for any particular latitude is given by c=2*pi*r, where r is the distance from the axis (not the centre).
That distance is given by r=R*cos(l), where R is the radius of Earth and l is the latitude.
This gives us c=2*pi*R*cos(l).
And that circumference is always given the same distance on the map, the entire width.
As the circumference is proportional to cos(l), it means it is stretched by a factor of 1/cos(l).
That means if a 1 cm long line at the equator represents 100 km, then a 1 cm long line at a given latitude (l) will represent 100 km/cos(l).
So this is entirely expected.
There are about 30 degrees being hidden on a typical map.
Not hidden, just not shown. (And it is typically more).
They typically don't show the north or south pole.
To do the Mercator projection correctly you would need an infinitely long map.
And as most people don't really care about Antarctica, why bother showing it on every map when it can just be removed to save a lot of space?
But this is only one projection. There are plenty of others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections
And plenty of these do show Antarctica.
So all you have are paranoid delusions and a lack of understanding.
-
There are about 30 degrees being hidden on a typical map.
I don't see anything hidden:
(https://worldmapblank.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/World-map-with-longitude-and-latitude-degrees-coordinates-.jpg.webp)
(https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w960-q80/upload/7d/c7/e9/latitude-and-longitude.png)
No fair, you used your own map.
That's cheating!
Oh you don't accept other maps that don't fit with your strawman arguments.
The dishonesty knows no limits with you huh.
-
One of my best friends got the opportunity to drive a Porsche across Antarctica.
He didn't see any walls.
What's that about?
Okay first of all, I'm pretty sure I don't buy the claim that your friend is that loaded. This would involve shipping an already expensive car by boat to an area that you have to have special permission and pay quite a bit of money for (actually look at Antarctica visits, they are typically two types: either you are a researcher and/or with the military, or you pay alot of money to have a boat take you to Antarctica). Then there is the logistics of driving across a surface of nothing but snow and ice, and not having it suddenly shatter on him. They wouldn't let him do this in the first place. The whole story sounds like he made it up to impress you, or you made it up for the purposes of this thread.
I don't really give a toss what you buy and how dare you challange how "loaded" you think my friend is. Yes the car was expensive to build and yes it was expensive to go there. It was around $20,000 per person alone. There was also a load of spares to ship there too. It was then flown to America along with a few other Porsches the company my friend works for built.
-
They boat tourists to some big iceberg, and tell them that they are exploring Antarctica.
I was in the navy with regular working class. The green arrow leads to the coast of Asia.
(https://i.imgur.com/xnSyMmY.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/h28pWyW.gif)
Not to an ice wall.
Do you see those circles on the flat Earth map? They aren't decoration.
East is around the circle. Clockwise. East also leads to the coast of Asia on the second map.
That direction you pointed to on the second map? That's south.
-
One of my best friends got the opportunity to drive a Porsche across Antarctica.
He didn't see any walls.
What's that about?
Hahahahaha
-
There are about 30 degrees being hidden on a typical map.
I don't see anything hidden:
(https://worldmapblank.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/World-map-with-longitude-and-latitude-degrees-coordinates-.jpg.webp)
(https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w960-q80/upload/7d/c7/e9/latitude-and-longitude.png)
No fair, you used your own map.
That's cheating!
Oh you don't accept other maps that don't fit with your strawman arguments.
The dishonesty knows no limits with you huh.
Nah, I could dispute that map too.
I just said that because you decided to use your own rather than the ones I used.
The point being, that water begins to glacier at around 60S. We know this because that is roughly where Alaska is on the northern hemisphere, starting around 60N. So all a tourist person has to do is take you to a known glacier around 60 S or so that is off any public maps.g You go kayaking, hiking, driving a Porsche, and then the tour guide is like, "So you're done playing in the snow? (Great, that means I don't have to deal with world government and the military) Then let's head back to warmer areas." These large glaciers are not shown on our maps, but the tourist groups involved in Antarctica tourism has a high level on nondisclosure.
I bet you didn't notice any scientists around while you were driving your Porsche, right? Because this is not Antarctica. You'll see large stretches of ocean on any globe. An entire continent could be hidden from 60 to 75 degrees S with plenty of space left over for what is actually 90 S. That continent could even be shaped like current maps depict Antarctica.
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
This is your Porsche? That's nice, but until you can prove to me that the navigator didn't actually take you to some other island of ice, I'm afraid we're still debating.
-
How do you think they faked the 24hr sunlight not available at 60S but expected at Antarctica during December when this was done?
-
How do you think they faked the 24hr sunlight not available at 60S but expected at Antarctica during December when this was done?
The same way everything about Antarctica is fake?
Btw, a land covered by ice shouldn't have 24 hours of sunlight. That's not rational.
Rather, whether a flat Earth model or a round Earth, if an area is perpetually cold, it could be because the sun never hits it. Rather than midnight sun or strange 24 hour sunlight, you should actually be seeing perpetual darkness. Given you say that the Earth "wobbles" you might get occasional sunlight around then. But if a mass of ice were hit 24 hours by a sun with an extreme heat of 27 million degrees at its core (though you say this is at a distance, like the other thread where gravity is brought up), though its surface is 10 thousand degrees, pretty soon you have a mass of water not ice.
What actually happened? While you were sleeping during the trip, the crew took the ship into a very large room in another dimension with a fake sun that gives no heat, and pulled you out of it on the way back. As you can see, this makes much more sense than heading to a location that is perpetually sunny yet nothing ever melts. Btw, how did this Porsche keep warm? The South Pole area is supposed to be −18° F during its warmest months and −76° F during its coldest. How does a Porsche somehow keep from turning into a block of ice while cruising about? It doesn't look very insulated.
The name of the place may have been Antarctica, but it was not 90 S. You were not at the South Pole.
Wherever you were, it wasn't 90 S. Either no sun hits 90 S, and it is even colder than they say (it also has no cold or warm seasons, just perpetual summer) or it has 24 hour sunlight, and any land on 90 S is a paradise (glacial moisture constantly keeping what would otherwise be a desert moist and sunny, a perpetual spring). And that assumption is supplying a round Earth. In a flat Earth, it is not a given that Antarctica exists at all, and the Earth either ends or continues out into further layers.
-
Damn, i forgot you were a twat, sorry for asking.
-
Damn, i forgot you were a twat, sorry for asking.
Hahahaha!
Well, I'm not a total twat. But I am a scifi writer, so this is fun for me.
But it's fairly obvious that a land that gets 24/7 sunlight should be more akin to an equatorial paradise than a frozen wasteland.
That's a pretty zombie gal there.
-
Damn, i forgot you were a twat, sorry for asking.
Hahahaha!
Well, I'm not a total twat. But I am a scifi writer, so this is fun for me.
But it's fairly obvious that a land that gets 24/7 sunlight should be more akin to an equatorial paradise than a frozen wasteland.
That's a pretty zombie gal there.
Why would it be akin to an equatorial zone? The sun sits just above the horizon and appears to circle around your position throughout the day. Plus there are many more people living fat enough North to experience the same phenomenon during the opposing 6 months or so of the year, and that's also mostly covered in ice.
-
How do you think they faked the 24hr sunlight not available at 60S but expected at Antarctica during December when this was done?
The same way everything about Antarctica is fake?
Btw, a land covered by ice shouldn't have 24 hours of sunlight. That's not rational.
There's only one thing not rational here.
As for ice melting and such, it does. And returns as condensation quite often.
- Reflective surface, i.e., white
- Low direction of rays, less intense than noon.
- Replaced by perpetual condensation/snow
(https://i.imgur.com/MPDyziC.gif)
How does a Porsche somehow keep from turning into a block of ice while cruising about? It doesn't look very insulated.
It was hard, lots of tech and lots of problems. Look it up.
The name of the place may have been Antarctica, but it was not 90 S. You were not at the South Pole.
No one said they were at the S Pole. The Porsche was here, Union Glacier:
(https://i.imgur.com/QySdwPH.jpg)
-
Damn, i forgot you were a twat, sorry for asking.
Hahahaha!
Well, I'm not a total twat. But I am a scifi writer, so this is fun for me.
But it's fairly obvious that a land that gets 24/7 sunlight should be more akin to an equatorial paradise than a frozen wasteland.
That's a pretty zombie gal there.
Why would it be akin to an equatorial zone? The sun sits just above the horizon and appears to circle around your position throughout the day. Plus there are many more people living fat enough North to experience the same phenomenon during the opposing 6 months or so of the year, and that's also mostly covered in ice.
So if you're talking about the North Pole, it is depicted as being water on most maps.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Arctic_Ocean_-_en.png/275px-Arctic_Ocean_-_en.png)
This is because whatever ice masses we have don't stick around. To the point where year after year, ignorant people tell us that the glaciers are all melting and polar bears are gonna all die. Because ummm polar bears are not good swimmers or anything, and don't grab fish from the water.
The glaciers are all melting because of 24/7 sun. They'll be back again when the sun isn't nearby.
But if some of the areas in northern Canada or Alaska get sun, ummm you might wanna look at this.
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/travel/land-of-the-midnight-sun-alaska-at-1-am-24-hour-daylight-for-2-months/
It does say that Alaska gets 24 hours of sun part of the year. It looks like this.
(https://s3.scoopwhoop.com/anj2/5eec8fe360c060567a122067/3c713dbd-0d17-4686-b12b-93b5ae7cbac1.jpg)
Yes, 24 hours would dramatically change the landscape. If it doesn't, the area that you're in is fake. So either that area is way way colder than you think, and you didn't see ice walls because they are down during the 24 hours of sun, or you were not taken to the real Antarctica. Since Alaska (60 N) gets this strange sunlight, you have no way of proving anything. You could have been at 60 S vs the actual South Pole area. Different island, different everything.
-
How do you think they faked the 24hr sunlight not available at 60S but expected at Antarctica during December when this was done?
The same way everything about Antarctica is fake?
I spent three months living and working in Antarctica. Can you give some examples of why you think "everything about Antarctica is fake"?
Btw, a land covered by ice shouldn't have 24 hours of sunlight. That's not rational.
Why not?
Rather, whether a flat Earth model or a round Earth, if an area is perpetually cold, it could be because the sun never hits it. Rather than midnight sun or strange 24 hour sunlight, you should actually be seeing perpetual darkness. Given you say that the Earth "wobbles" you might get occasional sunlight around then. But if a mass of ice were hit 24 hours by a sun with an extreme heat of 27 million degrees at its core (though you say this is at a distance, like the other thread where gravity is brought up), though its surface is 10 thousand degrees, pretty soon you have a mass of water not ice.
An area that is in perpetual darkness, has no other sources of heat, and is exposed to the open sky would indeed be cold. It will eventually cool to the temperature of the cosmic background, which is very, very cold - a few degrees above 0 Kelvin.
An area exposed to sunlight will maintain a yearly average temperature that balances the rate it receives heat (typically heat from solar irradiation and geothermal energy are the largest sources) with the rate it loses heat (radiation to space, evaporation of water, and wind and water currents typically dominate). The atmosphere will suppress heat loss by radiation to some extent, so very high elevations tend to be colder than lower elevations, and dry air is less effective than humid air since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, other things equal.
If the average annual temperature of an area is below the freezing point of water, the area will typically be ice covered.
At the poles, the highest angle of incident sunlight is about 23.5°. This means that the amount of solar energy received by a square meter of surface is about 40% as much as it would be if the sun were directly overhead (sin 23.5° = 0.3987), and it is near that relatively high angle only for a short time over a year. For fully half the year, it is zero. In snow and ice-covered Antarctica, much of the solar energy falling on the surface is immediately reflected back to the sky and is not absorbed by the ground. In Antarctica, this is typically about 80%. So the poles receive a diminished amount of solar energy for half a year (80% of which is immediately lost back to space) followed by, once the sun goes down, the sky darkening and the surface radiating heat to space as infrared radiation for the next half year. The average temperature is well below the freezing point of water.
At the polar circles (90° - 23.5° = 66.5° latitude N or S), the sun appears higher in the sky at local noon than it ever gets at the poles, but stays near its maximum altitude only briefly each day. The sun is fully above the horizon for only one day or so a year. It's warmer overall than would be expected at the poles, but still quite cold because, on average, the sun is higher in the sky. Between the polar circles and their respective poles, the length of the 24-hour sunlight periods is traded with the maximum height of the sun, but it stays cold because of the relatively low amount of solar power/area and generally high albedo (reflectance).
At McMurdo (78° S latitude), I recall the last sunset we got for the season was late October. After that the sun circled the sky all day, getting lowest in the sky at local midnight and highest at local noon. A few weeks later I moved to a remote field station (~86° S), and the sun stayed up for the two months we were there, not dipping quite as low or rising quite as high as it did at McMurdo. We were living on a very large sheet of snow-covered ice the entire time, although the temperature did reach 0° C and even a little above a few times late in the season while we were there. By the time we returned to McMurdo at the end of the season, much of the snow on the ground was gone, and mid-day temperatures reached as high as maybe even a balmy 5° C or so several times in the week before departing.
What actually happened? While you were sleeping during the trip, the crew took the ship into a very large room in another dimension with a fake sun that gives no heat, and pulled you out of it on the way back. As you can see, this makes much more sense than heading to a location that is perpetually sunny yet nothing ever melts. Btw, how did this Porsche keep warm? The South Pole area is supposed to be −18° F during its warmest months and −76° F during its coldest. How does a Porsche somehow keep from turning into a block of ice while cruising about? It doesn't look very insulated.
The name of the place may have been Antarctica, but it was not 90 S. You were not at the South Pole.
I don't think anyone claimed that the Porsche was at the South Pole.
Gasoline engines produce a lot of waste heat when they run. Some of that heat can be redirected to heat the cabin in typical automobiles. Dunno of this Porsche does that or not, but the windows admit light and items inside absorb much of that light and warm up because of it, but window glass don't pass the infrared radiation emitted by warm matter well, so it's trapped in the interior, which gets warmer than outside (i.e. the greenhouse effect). If it's still too cold, well, they have warm clothing.
Wherever you were, it wasn't 90 S. Either no sun hits 90 S, and it is even colder than they say (it also has no cold or warm seasons, just perpetual summer) or it has 24 hour sunlight, and any land on 90 S is a paradise (glacial moisture constantly keeping what would otherwise be a desert moist and sunny, a perpetual spring). And that assumption is supplying a round Earth. In a flat Earth, it is not a given that Antarctica exists at all, and the Earth either ends or continues out into further layers.
It's quite well known that it does get very, very cold at the South Pole during its six months of darkness, even if you hadn't heard that before. Sunlight is too weak at that latitude to provide enough warmth for what you ruminate about. It's still quite cold there, even in the season of 24-hour sunlight.
You either don't have a clue what you're talking about, or do, but are just spewing balderdash for whatever reason.
-
An entire continent could be hidden from 60 to 75 degrees S with plenty of space left over for what is actually 90 S. That continent could even be shaped like current maps depict Antarctica.
No, it couldn't.
Antarctica spans over 40 degrees of latitude.
You would need a much smaller continent to fit in between 60 and 75 degrees.
The same way everything about Antarctica is fake?
So that's a "no". You have no explanation for how it is faked, you just need it to be fake to pretend your nonsense is true.
Btw, a land covered by ice shouldn't have 24 hours of sunlight. That's not rational.
No, you're not rational.
Being illuminated by light doesn't magically mean water can't be frozen.
Are you fine with ice in the Artic circle? Where they can also experience 24 hours of sunlight?
Or do you think that is fake as well?
Rather, whether a flat Earth model or a round Earth, if an area is perpetually cold, it could be because the sun never hits it.
Cold is relative.
In order for water to freeze, you need to get the temperature below 273 K.
That still leaves quite a lot of heat there.
To see just how ridiculous your claims are, consider any other object that can melt, like bitumen (also known as tar or asphalt). Your nonsense is like saying all the roads on Earth should have melted because of the sun illuminating them.
Unless you are going to do the calculations to show what temperature the ice should be at, your words are worthless.
It is nothing more than an argument from your inability to comprehend.
How does a Porsche somehow keep from turning into a block of ice while cruising about?
By not being made out of water.
it has 24 hour sunlight, and any land on 90 S is a paradise (glacial moisture constantly keeping what would otherwise be a desert moist and sunny, a perpetual spring). And that assumption is supplying a round Earth.
No, that is based upon your delusional fantasy, so far removed from the reality of a RE it isn't funny.
So if you're talking about the North Pole, it is depicted as being water on most maps.
It is depicted as not being a continent on most maps.
But it has an ice cap, which remains throughout the year, including during summer where they experience 24 hours of daylight.
Likewise, land near there, e.g. Russia and Greenland, experience times where the sun doesn't set, yet still have ice.
But if some of the areas in northern Canada or Alaska get sun, ummm you might wanna look at this.
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/travel/land-of-the-midnight-sun-alaska-at-1-am-24-hour-daylight-for-2-months/
You mean which has plenty of images showing snow and/or ice?
And Alaska is on the edge of the Arctic circle, peaking at roughly 70 degrees north, as opposed to Antarctica which is well within the Arctic circle.
-
One of my best friends got the opportunity to drive a Porsche across Antarctica.
He didn't see any walls.
What's that about?
Prove you have a friend.
-
Bad moose, bad... lol
-
One of my best friends got the opportunity to drive a Porsche across Antarctica.
He didn't see any walls.
What's that about?
Okay first of all, I'm pretty sure I don't buy the claim that your friend is that loaded. This would involve shipping an already expensive car by boat to an area that you have to have special permission and pay quite a bit of money for (actually look at Antarctica visits, they are typically two types: either you are a researcher and/or with the military, or you pay alot of money to have a boat take you to Antarctica). Then there is the logistics of driving across a surface of nothing but snow and ice, and not having it suddenly shatter on him. They wouldn't let him do this in the first place. The whole story sounds like he made it up to impress you, or you made it up for the purposes of this thread.
But I'm gonna tell you something. Only one group really visits Antarctica, and it's not people with a little bit of money. It's the wealthy shadow elites that run countries. And maybe people with really high clearance in military and science.
The tourists? They visit islands about 60 S.
(https://d1e4pidl3fu268.cloudfront.net/e89aaa00-2d2d-421b-93ef-901e6a30c121/Findinglatitudeandlongitudecoordinatesonaworldmappresentation1.png)
(https://www.ergosum.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/world_map.jpg)
Notice that the line on alot of world maps seems to stretch at about the 60 degree point on both maps.
But you've forgotten something, a globe Earth follows rules of geometry.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Circle_Divided_into_degrees.svg/1200px-Circle_Divided_into_degrees.svg.png)
Just as a 2D circle follows strict guidelines for degrees, a 3D globe follows these same laws of geometry, unless you're gonna give me the copout that it's not a "real" circle. 180 degrees to the sides, 90 degrees from sides (equator) to top/bottom (poles).
...Have you noticed yet?
There are about 30 degrees being hidden on a typical map.
They boat tourists to some big iceberg, and tell them that they are exploring Antarctica. These rich rubes are too stupid to question that they are actually too far away to even see Antarctica, drive their Porsches around until they fall in ice cold water, and never get anywhere close to the wall.
It's also not a ice wall, it's a barrier to the outer world. Like this.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RefV-znzJ3M/WyAgpA1EzPI/AAAAAAAAJv0/wauvv9ZRmjsJ3SJWOJw_v3SuXci91T8zwCLcBGAs/s1600/b6otFshhUrqaBKuKLAHvhufIQOb8J-HPgGFGZZ0mEZs.jpg)
Your friend and you aren't important enough according to the elites to see the outer world.
Classic flat earth believer response. Totally ignore the reality of the situation then make up a host of lies to build a situation that fits a distorted world view.
In reality you know nothing about Antarctica other than what you have read. Your beliefs around Antarctica on the other hand are 100% made up lies and inventions.
-
There are about 30 degrees being hidden on a typical map.
I don't see anything hidden:
(https://worldmapblank.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/World-map-with-longitude-and-latitude-degrees-coordinates-.jpg.webp)
(https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w960-q80/upload/7d/c7/e9/latitude-and-longitude.png)
No fair, you used your own map.
That's cheating!
Oh you don't accept other maps that don't fit with your strawman arguments.
The dishonesty knows no limits with you huh.
Nah, I could dispute that map too.
I just said that because you decided to use your own rather than the ones I used.
The point being, that water begins to glacier at around 60S. We know this because that is roughly where Alaska is on the northern hemisphere, starting around 60N. So all a tourist person has to do is take you to a known glacier around 60 S or so that is off any public maps.g You go kayaking, hiking, driving a Porsche, and then the tour guide is like, "So you're done playing in the snow? (Great, that means I don't have to deal with world government and the military) Then let's head back to warmer areas." These large glaciers are not shown on our maps, but the tourist groups involved in Antarctica tourism has a high level on nondisclosure.
I bet you didn't notice any scientists around while you were driving your Porsche, right? Because this is not Antarctica. You'll see large stretches of ocean on any globe. An entire continent could be hidden from 60 to 75 degrees S with plenty of space left over for what is actually 90 S. That continent could even be shaped like current maps depict Antarctica.
(https://www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/valkyrie-racing-porsche-antarctica.jpg?fit=1200%2C800)
This is your Porsche? That's nice, but until you can prove to me that the navigator didn't actually take you to some other island of ice, I'm afraid we're still debating.
We're not debating.
He went there, the end.
You know when you take photos with a modern phone, the GPS location is stored in the photo right? (note: Global positioning Satellite), well guess what, his iPhone plots the location of his pictures right near the base in Antartica where he was.
Occam's Razor.
-
I heard that one of the earliest attempted circumnavigations of the south pole took way longer than expected ( ? one year ?), and was estimated to have been a 70 000 mile (km?) trip. The explorers name "Magellan" comes to mind but dont quote me on that one.
-
I heard it was known amongst flat earthers that one of the earliest attempted circumnavigations of the south pole took way longer than expected ( ? one year ?), and was estimated to have been a 70 000 mile (km?) trip. The explorers name "Magellan" comes to mind but dont quote me on that one.
And the issue is that it is just that, "heard it". It is FEers hearing a claim and being willing to repeat it because they think it backs them up, even though they haven't critically examined it. Some will also say it even after having it exposed as a falsehood.
It is like the claim of being able to see the Statue of Liberty from sea level 60 miles away, even though there is no location on Earth which would provide an unobstructed sea level view from 60 miles away (even if Earth was flat).
It was not Magellan. It was James Cook.
FEers will normally focus on his second voyage, as that included circumnavigating Antarctica, and it took a roughly 3 years, starting on 13 July 1772, and ending on 30 July 1775.
But there are several issues.
It wasn't just a simple circumnavigation of Antarctica.
Instead it was a trip from England down south to the Antarctic, then east and doing 2 laps around the south Pacific ocean to try and see if there is another continent there, before continuing east and then back north to England.
It also included stops along the way, because a ship can't just stay at sea for 3 years without resupply.
Here is the actual path of the voyage.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cook%27sSecondVoyage53.png)
Quite different to simply circumnavigating Antarctica.
And the "70 000 miles" is just nicely picked to match the NP centred FE circumference at 70 degrees south, but it conveniently ignores the distance required to get there and go back home. If they start in England at 51.5 degrees north, travelled due south to 70 degrees south, and then circled there and went due north back home, the total distance travelled would be ~125 000 km or ~86 000 miles. This is 13.5 Mm or 8400 miles south, followed by circling for 111.7 Mm or 69 400 miles, and then 13.5 Mm or 8400 miles north.
This is well beyond the 70 000 miles claimed to have been travelled.
If it is confined to 70 000 miles, then the latitude they had to circle at would be ~42 degrees south, having a trip of 10.4 Mm or 6400 miles south, 91.9 Mm or 57100 miles around, and then 10.4 Mm or 6400 miles north.
So even just thinking about just how long the journey would need to be on a FE shows that it couldn't have happened on a FE with that distance.
That distance relies upon them starting at 70 degrees south, and completing their journey at 70 degrees south.
This source:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/captain-cook-discovers-ends-earth
Indicates it was only actually 60 000 miles.
For a NP centred FE, that would limit you to around 30 degrees south. Hardly a circumnavigation of Antartica.
-
I heard that one of the earliest attempted circumnavigations of the south pole took way longer than expected ( ? one year ?), and was estimated to have been a 70 000 mile (km?) trip. The explorers name "Magellan" comes to mind but dont quote me on that one.
Yeah I can spout nonsense too and say don't quote me on that.
-
Damn, i forgot you were a twat, sorry for asking.
Hahahaha!
Well, I'm not a total twat. But I am a scifi writer, so this is fun for me.
But it's fairly obvious that a land that gets 24/7 sunlight should be more akin to an equatorial paradise than a frozen wasteland.
That's a pretty zombie gal there.
Why would it be akin to an equatorial zone? The sun sits just above the horizon and appears to circle around your position throughout the day. Plus there are many more people living fat enough North to experience the same phenomenon during the opposing 6 months or so of the year, and that's also mostly covered in ice.
So if you're talking about the North Pole, it is depicted as being water on most maps.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Arctic_Ocean_-_en.png/275px-Arctic_Ocean_-_en.png)
This is because whatever ice masses we have don't stick around. To the point where year after year, ignorant people tell us that the glaciers are all melting and polar bears are gonna all die. Because ummm polar bears are not good swimmers or anything, and don't grab fish from the water.
The glaciers are all melting because of 24/7 sun. They'll be back again when the sun isn't nearby.
But if some of the areas in northern Canada or Alaska get sun, ummm you might wanna look at this.
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/travel/land-of-the-midnight-sun-alaska-at-1-am-24-hour-daylight-for-2-months/
It does say that Alaska gets 24 hours of sun part of the year. It looks like this.
(https://s3.scoopwhoop.com/anj2/5eec8fe360c060567a122067/3c713dbd-0d17-4686-b12b-93b5ae7cbac1.jpg)
Yes, 24 hours would dramatically change the landscape. If it doesn't, the area that you're in is fake. So either that area is way way colder than you think, and you didn't see ice walls because they are down during the 24 hours of sun, or you were not taken to the real Antarctica. Since Alaska (60 N) gets this strange sunlight, you have no way of proving anything. You could have been at 60 S vs the actual South Pole area. Different island, different everything.
It’s often said that the ignorant pass judgment on things they know little or nothing about.
That description fits you like a well tailored suit.
Have you ever been to Antarctica ?
Have you studied it in any meaningful way. If so where did you obtain your data from on which you base your pronouncements?
It’s likely that not one person on this thread has been to Antarctica, therefore all comments are based on third hand accounts from what they have seen read or heard. Just like the interesting post that prompted this discussion. That’s the one despite the clear evidence that you discounted!
Your comments overflow with basic ignorance. The farther north or south one travels the longer or shorter the days become such that on the poles you can experience almost perpetual night or daylight. Even the northern latitude where I live our days in the summer extend to well into late evening while in the winter dark descends in the early afternoon. It’s no magic it’s just fact. It’s the kind of fact that your inbuilt ignorance likes to ignore.
The main and most obvious point is you know nothing about Antarctica yet you pass comment as though you were some kind of expert! From all your other posts it appears you know or understand little about the nature of our world.
All your comments display is the extent of your inherent gross stupidity.
-
How do you think they faked the 24hr sunlight not available at 60S but expected at Antarctica during December when this was done?
The same way everything about Antarctica is fake?
I spent three months living and working in Antarctica. Can you give some examples of why you think "everything about Antarctica is fake"?
Btw, a land covered by ice shouldn't have 24 hours of sunlight. That's not rational.
Why not?
Rather, whether a flat Earth model or a round Earth, if an area is perpetually cold, it could be because the sun never hits it. Rather than midnight sun or strange 24 hour sunlight, you should actually be seeing perpetual darkness. Given you say that the Earth "wobbles" you might get occasional sunlight around then. But if a mass of ice were hit 24 hours by a sun with an extreme heat of 27 million degrees at its core (though you say this is at a distance, like the other thread where gravity is brought up), though its surface is 10 thousand degrees, pretty soon you have a mass of water not ice.
An area that is in perpetual darkness, has no other sources of heat, and is exposed to the open sky would indeed be cold. It will eventually cool to the temperature of the cosmic background, which is very, very cold - a few degrees above 0 Kelvin.
An area exposed to sunlight will maintain a yearly average temperature that balances the rate it receives heat (typically heat from solar irradiation and geothermal energy are the largest sources) with the rate it loses heat (radiation to space, evaporation of water, and wind and water currents typically dominate). The atmosphere will suppress heat loss by radiation to some extent, so very high elevations tend to be colder than lower elevations, and dry air is less effective than humid air since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, other things equal.
If the average annual temperature of an area is below the freezing point of water, the area will typically be ice covered.
At the poles, the highest angle of incident sunlight is about 23.5°. This means that the amount of solar energy received by a square meter of surface is about 40% as much as it would be if the sun were directly overhead (sin 23.5° = 0.3987), and it is near that relatively high angle only for a short time over a year. For fully half the year, it is zero. In snow and ice-covered Antarctica, much of the solar energy falling on the surface is immediately reflected back to the sky and is not absorbed by the ground. In Antarctica, this is typically about 80%. So the poles receive a diminished amount of solar energy for half a year (80% of which is immediately lost back to space) followed by, once the sun goes down, the sky darkening and the surface radiating heat to space as infrared radiation for the next half year. The average temperature is well below the freezing point of water.
At the polar circles (90° - 23.5° = 66.5° latitude N or S), the sun appears higher in the sky at local noon than it ever gets at the poles, but stays near its maximum altitude only briefly each day. The sun is fully above the horizon for only one day or so a year. It's warmer overall than would be expected at the poles, but still quite cold because, on average, the sun is higher in the sky. Between the polar circles and their respective poles, the length of the 24-hour sunlight periods is traded with the maximum height of the sun, but it stays cold because of the relatively low amount of solar power/area and generally high albedo (reflectance).
At McMurdo (78° S latitude), I recall the last sunset we got for the season was late October. After that the sun circled the sky all day, getting lowest in the sky at local midnight and highest at local noon. A few weeks later I moved to a remote field station (~86° S), and the sun stayed up for the two months we were there, not dipping quite as low or rising quite as high as it did at McMurdo. We were living on a very large sheet of snow-covered ice the entire time, although the temperature did reach 0° C and even a little above a few times late in the season while we were there. By the time we returned to McMurdo at the end of the season, much of the snow on the ground was gone, and mid-day temperatures reached as high as maybe even a balmy 5° C or so several times in the week before departing.
What actually happened? While you were sleeping during the trip, the crew took the ship into a very large room in another dimension with a fake sun that gives no heat, and pulled you out of it on the way back. As you can see, this makes much more sense than heading to a location that is perpetually sunny yet nothing ever melts. Btw, how did this Porsche keep warm? The South Pole area is supposed to be −18° F during its warmest months and −76° F during its coldest. How does a Porsche somehow keep from turning into a block of ice while cruising about? It doesn't look very insulated.
The name of the place may have been Antarctica, but it was not 90 S. You were not at the South Pole.
I don't think anyone claimed that the Porsche was at the South Pole.
Gasoline engines produce a lot of waste heat when they run. Some of that heat can be redirected to heat the cabin in typical automobiles. Dunno of this Porsche does that or not, but the windows admit light and items inside absorb much of that light and warm up because of it, but window glass don't pass the infrared radiation emitted by warm matter well, so it's trapped in the interior, which gets warmer than outside (i.e. the greenhouse effect). If it's still too cold, well, they have warm clothing.
Wherever you were, it wasn't 90 S. Either no sun hits 90 S, and it is even colder than they say (it also has no cold or warm seasons, just perpetual summer) or it has 24 hour sunlight, and any land on 90 S is a paradise (glacial moisture constantly keeping what would otherwise be a desert moist and sunny, a perpetual spring). And that assumption is supplying a round Earth. In a flat Earth, it is not a given that Antarctica exists at all, and the Earth either ends or continues out into further layers.
It's quite well known that it does get very, very cold at the South Pole during its six months of darkness, even if you hadn't heard that before. Sunlight is too weak at that latitude to provide enough warmth for what you ruminate about. It's still quite cold there, even in the season of 24-hour sunlight.
You either don't have a clue what you're talking about, or do, but are just spewing balderdash for whatever reason.
So this three months. Was any of it during the peak of winter? And did you ever, rather than driving around edge, drive directly south through the pole and try to book a boat on the other side? And continue heading south and see what you see? If not, I can tell you that you can't know anything.
1. You can't know there isn't a completely huge ice wall during the height of brutal winter.
2. You can't know that Antarctica wasn't just a long icy circle around the 60 degree to 75 degree mark, and after that something else closer to 90 degrees
3. You can't know if you are closing in on the southern edge of the Earth, having gone completely around the island or whether you were skirting the northern tip.
4. You can't know if there is an ice wall much further inland.
5. Or if beyond Antarctica, the world extends into other islands.
6. Or if the map of Antarctica really looks more like this
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GTy8YW-9jhg/VVzcKDIgj3I/AAAAAAAAEMM/SXv0Q1Wd2R0/s1600/antarctica%2Bblog%2B-%2Bflat%2Bearth%2Baerial%2Bcircumnaviation%2Bflight%2Bplan.jpg)
Take a look at the shot I quoted about earlier.
(https://i.imgur.com/h28pWyW.gif)
Remember I talked about these lines? And how round Earthers use that you can circle the "globe" as proof that the Earth is round? Oh yes, but a disc is also round, it doesn't mean it is a globe. You're just circling these lines, skimming the very edge of Antarctica.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cook%27sSecondVoyage53.png)
So the thing is, we have this random AF trip where James cook nonetheless seems to have missed large portions of water in the center of point A (India to Australia and China) and Point B (between Russia/China/Australia and the Americas). If he was trying to prove there are no hidden islands, he did a bad job.
If we look at this with the perspective as I said of east being clockwise, then much of this continent hasn't actually been explored. Nor has much of the ocean, since those circles he did look much much different on a flat Earth map, showing just how huge a stretch of ocean there is. I've seen this myself on Google Maps, they have filler texture that seems to account for long strwtches of ocean, but when you check again from other origin points or zoom in, you don't get the same results.
(https://i2-prod.irishmirror.ie/incoming/article7245071.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Fangataufa-atoll.jpg)
Texture errors abound in the middle of the Pacific. There could be a hidden island as huge as Atlantis or Mu, an actual continent, and we wouldn't know it because our explorers all used assumptions about exploration that might not be so.
You want to know where the ice wall is? You're on it. A wall reaching across the southern part of the world which everyone skirts around and nobody wants to go through. A Porsche? Come back when you drive a boat with skies through one side to another and continue sailing. Any hidden islands would be south of this large wall or in the huge stretches of ocean that we explored in a half-assed manner like Cook.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RefV-znzJ3M/WyAgpA1EzPI/AAAAAAAAJv0/wauvv9ZRmjsJ3SJWOJw_v3SuXci91T8zwCLcBGAs/s1600/b6otFshhUrqaBKuKLAHvhufIQOb8J-HPgGFGZZ0mEZs.jpg)
Someone accused me of not knowing anything about Antarctica beyond what they've read. Pot meet kettle. Most of this world knows that Antarctica looks like this.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uwyADGBevWo/Uk2RRwXUf8I/AAAAAAAADOA/0ePk4ZBYTbc/s1600/antarctica-map.gif)
They know it's cold. They know it has penguins. They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures. They can't tell whether this map is real or just based on assumptions. In other words, if knowing you don't know is wise, and thinking you know is folly, I am a touch more wise, and I will admit that I've not spent 3 months in a Porsche tooling about probably with no idea where to go to test for certain whether or not there's an ice wall. Most of the people disputing flat Earth have literally no concept how the theory works. As proof of this, the military guy who did the green arrow mistakenly thought that what he was pointing to was east when he actually pointed south. If they aren't even sure what they're disputing, how can they disprove it?
And yes, I've slept in a car during the winter. A Porsche can't really hold that many tanks of gasoline in its trunk, and you wouldn't want to be breathing gas fumes, so we are talking about a cozy summer trip of only about 17 below. A blanket, heat on, and probably refilling gas near the bases. Not an arduous drive straight through the middle, involving that you get out and refill the tank in below freezing temperatures. I am reasonably certain that you didn't drive directly through due to the odds of getting stranded away from base. Human fear is a bit more intense than their spirit of adventure. You might have gone inland enough to prove something to yourself, but probably not enough to risk proving whether the Earth is flat or not. Too dangerous.
-
How do you think they faked the 24hr sunlight not available at 60S but expected at Antarctica during December when this was done?
The same way everything about Antarctica is fake?
I spent three months living and working in Antarctica. Can you give some examples of why you think "everything about Antarctica is fake"?
Btw, a land covered by ice shouldn't have 24 hours of sunlight. That's not rational.
Why not?
Rather, whether a flat Earth model or a round Earth, if an area is perpetually cold, it could be because the sun never hits it. Rather than midnight sun or strange 24 hour sunlight, you should actually be seeing perpetual darkness. Given you say that the Earth "wobbles" you might get occasional sunlight around then. But if a mass of ice were hit 24 hours by a sun with an extreme heat of 27 million degrees at its core (though you say this is at a distance, like the other thread where gravity is brought up), though its surface is 10 thousand degrees, pretty soon you have a mass of water not ice.
An area that is in perpetual darkness, has no other sources of heat, and is exposed to the open sky would indeed be cold. It will eventually cool to the temperature of the cosmic background, which is very, very cold - a few degrees above 0 Kelvin.
An area exposed to sunlight will maintain a yearly average temperature that balances the rate it receives heat (typically heat from solar irradiation and geothermal energy are the largest sources) with the rate it loses heat (radiation to space, evaporation of water, and wind and water currents typically dominate). The atmosphere will suppress heat loss by radiation to some extent, so very high elevations tend to be colder than lower elevations, and dry air is less effective than humid air since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, other things equal.
If the average annual temperature of an area is below the freezing point of water, the area will typically be ice covered.
At the poles, the highest angle of incident sunlight is about 23.5°. This means that the amount of solar energy received by a square meter of surface is about 40% as much as it would be if the sun were directly overhead (sin 23.5° = 0.3987), and it is near that relatively high angle only for a short time over a year. For fully half the year, it is zero. In snow and ice-covered Antarctica, much of the solar energy falling on the surface is immediately reflected back to the sky and is not absorbed by the ground. In Antarctica, this is typically about 80%. So the poles receive a diminished amount of solar energy for half a year (80% of which is immediately lost back to space) followed by, once the sun goes down, the sky darkening and the surface radiating heat to space as infrared radiation for the next half year. The average temperature is well below the freezing point of water.
At the polar circles (90° - 23.5° = 66.5° latitude N or S), the sun appears higher in the sky at local noon than it ever gets at the poles, but stays near its maximum altitude only briefly each day. The sun is fully above the horizon for only one day or so a year. It's warmer overall than would be expected at the poles, but still quite cold because, on average, the sun is higher in the sky. Between the polar circles and their respective poles, the length of the 24-hour sunlight periods is traded with the maximum height of the sun, but it stays cold because of the relatively low amount of solar power/area and generally high albedo (reflectance).
At McMurdo (78° S latitude), I recall the last sunset we got for the season was late October. After that the sun circled the sky all day, getting lowest in the sky at local midnight and highest at local noon. A few weeks later I moved to a remote field station (~86° S), and the sun stayed up for the two months we were there, not dipping quite as low or rising quite as high as it did at McMurdo. We were living on a very large sheet of snow-covered ice the entire time, although the temperature did reach 0° C and even a little above a few times late in the season while we were there. By the time we returned to McMurdo at the end of the season, much of the snow on the ground was gone, and mid-day temperatures reached as high as maybe even a balmy 5° C or so several times in the week before departing.
What actually happened? While you were sleeping during the trip, the crew took the ship into a very large room in another dimension with a fake sun that gives no heat, and pulled you out of it on the way back. As you can see, this makes much more sense than heading to a location that is perpetually sunny yet nothing ever melts. Btw, how did this Porsche keep warm? The South Pole area is supposed to be −18° F during its warmest months and −76° F during its coldest. How does a Porsche somehow keep from turning into a block of ice while cruising about? It doesn't look very insulated.
The name of the place may have been Antarctica, but it was not 90 S. You were not at the South Pole.
I don't think anyone claimed that the Porsche was at the South Pole.
Gasoline engines produce a lot of waste heat when they run. Some of that heat can be redirected to heat the cabin in typical automobiles. Dunno of this Porsche does that or not, but the windows admit light and items inside absorb much of that light and warm up because of it, but window glass don't pass the infrared radiation emitted by warm matter well, so it's trapped in the interior, which gets warmer than outside (i.e. the greenhouse effect). If it's still too cold, well, they have warm clothing.
Wherever you were, it wasn't 90 S. Either no sun hits 90 S, and it is even colder than they say (it also has no cold or warm seasons, just perpetual summer) or it has 24 hour sunlight, and any land on 90 S is a paradise (glacial moisture constantly keeping what would otherwise be a desert moist and sunny, a perpetual spring). And that assumption is supplying a round Earth. In a flat Earth, it is not a given that Antarctica exists at all, and the Earth either ends or continues out into further layers.
It's quite well known that it does get very, very cold at the South Pole during its six months of darkness, even if you hadn't heard that before. Sunlight is too weak at that latitude to provide enough warmth for what you ruminate about. It's still quite cold there, even in the season of 24-hour sunlight.
You either don't have a clue what you're talking about, or do, but are just spewing balderdash for whatever reason.
So this three months. Was any of it during the peak of winter? And did you ever, rather than driving around edge, drive directly south through the pole and try to book a boat on the other side? And continue heading south and see what you see? If not, I can tell you that you can't know anything.
1. You can't know there isn't a completely huge ice wall during the height of brutal winter.
2. You can't know that Antarctica wasn't just a long icy circle around the 60 degree to 75 degree mark, and after that something else closer to 90 degrees
3. You can't know if you are closing in on the southern edge of the Earth, having gone completely around the island or whether you were skirting the northern tip.
4. You can't know if there is an ice wall much further inland.
5. Or if beyond Antarctica, the world extends into other islands.
6. Or if the map of Antarctica really looks more like this
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GTy8YW-9jhg/VVzcKDIgj3I/AAAAAAAAEMM/SXv0Q1Wd2R0/s1600/antarctica%2Bblog%2B-%2Bflat%2Bearth%2Baerial%2Bcircumnaviation%2Bflight%2Bplan.jpg)
Take a look at the shot I quoted about earlier.
(https://i.imgur.com/h28pWyW.gif)
Remember I talked about these lines? And how round Earthers use that you can circle the "globe" as proof that the Earth is round? Oh yes, but a disc is also round, it doesn't mean it is a globe. You're just circling these lines, skimming the very edge of Antarctica.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cook%27sSecondVoyage53.png)
So the thing is, we have this random AF trip where James cook nonetheless seems to have missed large portions of water in the center of point A (India to Australia and China) and Point B (between Russia/China/Australia and the Americas). If he was trying to prove there are no hidden islands, he did a bad job.
If we look at this with the perspective as I said of east being clockwise, then much of this continent hasn't actually been explored. Nor has much of the ocean, since those circles he did look much much different on a flat Earth map, showing just how huge a stretch of ocean there is. I've seen this myself on Google Maps, they have filler texture that seems to account for long strwtches of ocean, but when you check again from other origin points or zoom in, you don't get the same results.
(https://i2-prod.irishmirror.ie/incoming/article7245071.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Fangataufa-atoll.jpg)
Texture errors abound in the middle of the Pacific. There could be a hidden island as huge as Atlantis or Mu, an actual continent, and we wouldn't know it because our explorers all used assumptions about exploration that might not be so.
You want to know where the ice wall is? You're on it. A wall reaching across the southern part of the world which everyone skirts around and nobody wants to go through. A Porsche? Come back when you drive a boat with skies through one side to another and continue sailing. Any hidden islands would be south of this large wall or in the huge stretches of ocean that we explored in a half-assed manner like Cook.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RefV-znzJ3M/WyAgpA1EzPI/AAAAAAAAJv0/wauvv9ZRmjsJ3SJWOJw_v3SuXci91T8zwCLcBGAs/s1600/b6otFshhUrqaBKuKLAHvhufIQOb8J-HPgGFGZZ0mEZs.jpg)
Someone accused me of not knowing anything about Antarctica beyond what they've read. Pot meet kettle. Most of this world knows that Antarctica looks like this.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uwyADGBevWo/Uk2RRwXUf8I/AAAAAAAADOA/0ePk4ZBYTbc/s1600/antarctica-map.gif)
They know it's cold. They know it has penguins. They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures. They can't tell whether this map is real or just based on assumptions. In other words, if knowing you don't know is wise, and thinking you know is folly, I am a touch more wise, and I will admit that I've not spent 3 months in a Porsche tooling about probably with no idea where to go to test for certain whether or not there's an ice wall. Most of the people disputing flat Earth have literally no concept how the theory works. As proof of this, the military guy who did the green arrow mistakenly thought that what he was pointing to was east when he actually pointed south. If they aren't even sure what they're disputing, how can they disprove it?
And yes, I've slept in a car during the winter. A Porsche can't really hold that many tanks of gasoline in its trunk, and you wouldn't want to be breathing gas fumes, so we are talking about a cozy summer trip of only about 17 below. A blanket, heat on, and probably refilling gas near the bases. Not an arduous drive straight through the middle, involving that you get out and refill the tank in below freezing temperatures. I am reasonably certain that you didn't drive directly through due to the odds of getting stranded away from base. Human fear is a bit more intense than their spirit of adventure. You might have gone inland enough to prove something to yourself, but probably not enough to risk proving whether the Earth is flat or not. Too dangerous.
Why do you insist on commenting on things you know nothing about?
Have you been to Antartica?
Where have you obtained your information that you base your comments on?
Making comments on a subject you know zero about is proof of a feeble mind especially when they totally contradict the known reality.
-
It’s likely that not one person on this thread has been to Antarctica, therefore all comments are based on third hand accounts from what they have seen read or heard.
I have. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90588.msg2367849#msg2367849
[Re: the post referenced above]
So this three months. Was any of it during the peak of winter? And did you ever, rather than driving around edge, drive directly south through the pole and try to book a boat on the other side? And continue heading south and see what you see? If not, I can tell you that you can't know anything.
Did you read my post? If you did, recall that I said I was there for three months, the last sunset (at McMurdo) was in late October, and a few weeks later we departed for a two-month stay at a temporary field camp. That means most of my time on the ice was after that last McMurdo sunset. Three months after late October is late January, so, based on what I already said, I must have departed by or shortly before late January. I actually arrived 20 October and left 17 January. Do you think that is winter in Antarctica? Spoiler: it isn't.
That post was response was to this:
The same way everything about Antarctica is fake?
Btw, a land covered by ice shouldn't have 24 hours of sunlight. That's not rational.
Rather, whether a flat Earth model or a round Earth, if an area is perpetually cold, it could be because the sun never hits it. Rather than midnight sun or strange 24 hour sunlight, you should actually be seeing perpetual darkness. Given you say that the Earth "wobbles" you might get occasional sunlight around then. But if a mass of ice were hit 24 hours by a sun with an extreme heat of 27 million degrees at its core (though you say this is at a distance, like the other thread where gravity is brought up), though its surface is 10 thousand degrees, pretty soon you have a mass of water not ice.
What I do know is that during the three month period I was there, the sun was up almost the entire time, and pretty much everywhere I went was ice and snow covered. The exception was downtown McMurdo late in the summer season, where heavy vehicle and foot traffic causes the snow to melt, which exposes soil (McMurdo is on Ross Island) in addition to areas of naturally-exposed rock and soil. The exposed soil causes other snowy areas to become dirty from traffic and wind-blown dust, which means it absorbs more sunlight, which causes it to melt, etc.
And, no. We had a job to do. We flew from the US to NZ, then from NZ to McMurdo, prepared equipment and supplies for the field work, flew from there to set up some field stations at scattered locations, and I stayed at one of them for two months, then returned to McMurdo, checked borrowed equipment back in and prepped our own for the return trip, then flew to NZ and back to the US. We didn't spend time driving around except when moving equipment to and from staging areas in McMurdo. We used no boats.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.
-
They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.
Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:
How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?) (https://biogeoplanet.com/how-penguins-stay-warm/)
-
If not, I can tell you that you can't know anything.
1. You can't know there isn't a completely huge ice wall during the height of brutal winter.
2. You can't know that Antarctica wasn't just a long icy circle around the 60 degree to 75 degree mark, and after that something else closer to 90 degrees
3. You can't know if you are closing in on the southern edge of the Earth, having gone completely around the island or whether you were skirting the northern tip.
4. You can't know if there is an ice wall much further inland.
5. Or if beyond Antarctica, the world extends into other islands.
6. Or if the map of Antarctica really looks more like this
You mean YOU choose not to know anything.
Other people can know things, because they want to find out how reality works.
For example, quite related to this is the issue from the other thread which you chose to ignore, that of the south celestial pole, which demonstrates quite clearly that it is a southern pole and that those in Antarctica are close to it. Related to this is the sun, which can be observed due south around mid-night, with it remaining above the horizon for quite a long time.
Another is the distance. For your fantasy, the distance is much much much greater than what it is in reality.
So no, people can know that Antarctica is a continent in the southern hemisphere which contains the south celestial pole, and that it is a pole of a round Earth.
You not liking that and choosing to remain wilfully ignorant will not change that fact and it doesn't mean that no one else can know.
Remember I talked about these lines? And how round Earthers use that you can circle the "globe" as proof that the Earth is round? Oh yes, but a disc is also round, it doesn't mean it is a globe. You're just circling these lines, skimming the very edge of Antarctica.
Except as already pointed out, that would take far too long.
So the thing is, we have this random AF trip where James cook nonetheless seems to have missed large portions of water in the center of point A (India to Australia and China) and Point B (between Russia/China/Australia and the Americas). If he was trying to prove there are no hidden islands, he did a bad job.
Only if you want to pretend there was absolutely no one before him (nor his prior voyage), and if you want to blatantly lie about the purpose.
He wasn't trying to find hidden islands.
He was trying to find a large continent
If we look at this with the perspective as I said of east being clockwise, then much of this continent hasn't actually been explored. Nor has much of the ocean, since those circles he did look much much different on a flat Earth map
You mean if we completely throw reality out the window?
No thanks.
I will stick to reality, where the distances involved show your fantasy doesn't work.
Showing that it would be different in your fantasy has no impact on reality.
Texture errors abound in the middle of the Pacific. There could be a hidden island as huge as Atlantis or Mu, an actual continent, and we wouldn't know it because our explorers all used assumptions about exploration that might not be so.
Again, your fantasy has no impact on reality.
It is quite well established that Earth is round, with plenty of evidence supporting it.
If you need to pretend that Earth might be flat, then you aren't objecting to assumptions that "might not be so". Instead you are appealing to assumptions to pretend there could be more space, with assumptions that are not so.
Most of this world knows that Antarctica looks like this.
They know it's cold. They know it has penguins. They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.
Most people not knowing something doesn't magically mean it is false.
For most specific details, most people don't know, and that is true about almost everything.
The big difference between Antarctica and your fantasy, is that people can learn and obtain evidence for Antarctica, and there is already plenty of evidence that has been obtained; but for your fantasy there is none, and no explanation.
In other words, if knowing you don't know is wise, and thinking you know is folly, I am a touch more wise, and I will admit that I've not spent 3 months in a Porsche tooling about probably with no idea where to go to test for certain whether or not there's an ice wall. Most of the people disputing flat Earth have literally no concept how the theory works. As proof of this, the military guy who did the green arrow mistakenly thought that what he was pointing to was east when he actually pointed south. If they aren't even sure what they're disputing, how can they disprove it?
As you said, Pot meet Kettle.
You have claimed to know so much, which you cannot justify at all, and have tried to object to the RE, while clearly either having no idea what you are talking about, or intentionally misrepresenting it.
-
If not, I can tell you that you can't know anything.
1. You can't know there isn't a completely huge ice wall during the height of brutal winter.
2. You can't know that Antarctica wasn't just a long icy circle around the 60 degree to 75 degree mark, and after that something else closer to 90 degrees
3. You can't know if you are closing in on the southern edge of the Earth, having gone completely around the island or whether you were skirting the northern tip.
4. You can't know if there is an ice wall much further inland.
5. Or if beyond Antarctica, the world extends into other islands.
6. Or if the map of Antarctica really looks more like this
You mean YOU choose not to know anything.
Other people can know things, because they want to find out how reality works.
For example, quite related to this is the issue from the other thread which you chose to ignore, that of the south celestial pole, which demonstrates quite clearly that it is a southern pole and that those in Antarctica are close to it. Related to this is the sun, which can be observed due south around mid-night, with it remaining above the horizon for quite a long time.
Another is the distance. For your fantasy, the distance is much much much greater than what it is in reality.
So no, people can know that Antarctica is a continent in the southern hemisphere which contains the south celestial pole, and that it is a pole of a round Earth.
You not liking that and choosing to remain wilfully ignorant will not change that fact and it doesn't mean that no one else can know.
Remember I talked about these lines? And how round Earthers use that you can circle the "globe" as proof that the Earth is round? Oh yes, but a disc is also round, it doesn't mean it is a globe. You're just circling these lines, skimming the very edge of Antarctica.
Except as already pointed out, that would take far too long.
So the thing is, we have this random AF trip where James cook nonetheless seems to have missed large portions of water in the center of point A (India to Australia and China) and Point B (between Russia/China/Australia and the Americas). If he was trying to prove there are no hidden islands, he did a bad job.
Only if you want to pretend there was absolutely no one before him (nor his prior voyage), and if you want to blatantly lie about the purpose.
He wasn't trying to find hidden islands.
He was trying to find a large continent
If we look at this with the perspective as I said of east being clockwise, then much of this continent hasn't actually been explored. Nor has much of the ocean, since those circles he did look much much different on a flat Earth map
You mean if we completely throw reality out the window?
No thanks.
I will stick to reality, where the distances involved show your fantasy doesn't work.
Showing that it would be different in your fantasy has no impact on reality.
Texture errors abound in the middle of the Pacific. There could be a hidden island as huge as Atlantis or Mu, an actual continent, and we wouldn't know it because our explorers all used assumptions about exploration that might not be so.
Again, your fantasy has no impact on reality.
It is quite well established that Earth is round, with plenty of evidence supporting it.
If you need to pretend that Earth might be flat, then you aren't objecting to assumptions that "might not be so". Instead you are appealing to assumptions to pretend there could be more space, with assumptions that are not so.
Most of this world knows that Antarctica looks like this.
They know it's cold. They know it has penguins. They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.
Most people not knowing something doesn't magically mean it is false.
For most specific details, most people don't know, and that is true about almost everything.
The big difference between Antarctica and your fantasy, is that people can learn and obtain evidence for Antarctica, and there is already plenty of evidence that has been obtained; but for your fantasy there is none, and no explanation.
In other words, if knowing you don't know is wise, and thinking you know is folly, I am a touch more wise, and I will admit that I've not spent 3 months in a Porsche tooling about probably with no idea where to go to test for certain whether or not there's an ice wall. Most of the people disputing flat Earth have literally no concept how the theory works. As proof of this, the military guy who did the green arrow mistakenly thought that what he was pointing to was east when he actually pointed south. If they aren't even sure what they're disputing, how can they disprove it?
As you said, Pot meet Kettle.
You have claimed to know so much, which you cannot justify at all, and have tried to object to the RE, while clearly either having no idea what you are talking about, or intentionally misrepresenting it.
On the contrary. I grew up with round Earth science. Elementary school, middle school, high school, and finally college. I skipped math in college thanks to community college giving me courses up to Calculus (which I mostly forgot, as there is zero use for it in my daily life or work), but I continued with chemistry, physics, and finally studied horticulture before getting completely sick and tired of labs, papers, and tests (my major was history, and I switched my minor over to religion). I got plenty of this crap taught to me.
Not only do you not properly understand how a flat Earth works, you do not even really understand your own theory. The navy or whatever guy pointed south precisely because he, like most of you, do not understand the purpose of lines of latitude. Kindly do the following. Position your index finger upward and make a circular motion.
Whether you are dealing with globe or disc-shaped (hence flat on top with soil, rock, etc below) Earth, you make these circles when you go around the Earth. They do not prove the world is a globe. The way to prove that is to measure the length of the circles of latitude and whether they actually contract (that is, does a trip from US to China back to US take less time than a trip around the equator? Does it take the same amount of time for a certain latitude N as the same latitude south (e.g. do 40 N and 40 S both take several hours of flight less than an equator trip?)
If not, then you are working with an abstract model, not an actual image of what is going on. Btw, no maps agree on this, so you'd need to make three trips around the world. You can't just trust a globe or map not to be distorted.
Round Earth follows rules of geometry as well as rules of science. Most world maps depict the Earth not as a flat ever-expanding disc, nor even a globe. If we have equal lines of latitude as in the average map, we are really looking at a cylinder. But this model doesn't work either. Water doesn't stand upright. All models of the Earth are abstracts.
Round Earthers often talk about how in flat Earth airplane flights have to adjust constantly, pointing out just how incredibly ignorant they are. Flat Earthers know that they are working in theory, since most of the science on this is in extremely old tomes, some of which are in another language or too dry to follow. They have to instead piece together what they know from existing math and science. So yes, I am more familiar with your own system than you. That is why I refuse to believe in it anymore.
Btw, youguys didn't even get Cook's circumnavigation route right. He did check the upper sections.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Cook_Three_Voyages_59.png/640px-Cook_Three_Voyages_59.png)
-
The way to prove that is to measure the length of the circles of latitude and whether they actually contract (that is, does a trip from US to China back to US take less time than a trip around the equator?
Done:
(https://i.imgur.com/fYXAbKa.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/K5blelS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PY2S6ym.png)
-
On the contrary. I grew up with round Earth science. Elementary school, middle school, high school, and finally college.
And you clearly didn't care enough to pay attention and actual retain any of that knowledge.
Not only do you not properly understand how a flat Earth works, you do not even really understand your own theory.
You sure do love projection don't you?
I understand a variety of FE models, and the mainstream model, quite well.
It is you that has been repeatedly spouting pure garbage, refusing to defend the FE model and instead literally ignoring problems with it, while continually spouting complete falsehoods about the RE model.
The nonsense you are spouting would be quite clearly nonsense to anyone who has taken basic mechanics.
The navy or whatever guy pointed south precisely because he, like most of you, do not understand the purpose of lines of latitude.
They pointed east, which if you continue in a straight line would end up being south for that FE map.
In fact, for that FE model, if you pick any location and any direction, after long enough, it is going roughly south.
As for latitude, that is just another thing which makes no sense at all on a FE.
On a FE, while you can justify the longitude being an angle, it should be using polar coordinates, with a radius and an angle.
An angular measure for distance from the north poles makes no sense.
But for a RE, it makes sense to use an angle for both, as you are describing a location on the surface of a sphere.
You could use 3 coordinates, to also include the radius, but that would be fairly constant at roughly 6400 km.
But notice how yet again, you just deflect the BS you have spouted and had refuted.
Instead of focusing on the fact that Cook's journey couldn't have been undertaken on a FE because of the distances involved, you just ignore that and jump on this BS.
Btw, no maps agree on this, so you'd need to make three trips around the world.
Wrong again.
The RE maps do agree on this. You refusing to understand the projection involved doesn't change that fact.
But even if you did want to ignore that, you don't need to make three trips around the world.
You just need to measure the length of a change in longitude at a given latitude.
For example, you can determine how long 15 degrees of longitude is at each location.
And a good example of that is Australia, which the FE garbage has far too wide.
Most world maps depict the Earth not as a flat ever-expanding disc, nor even a globe. If we have equal lines of latitude as in the average map, we are really looking at a cylinder.
Only to those who wish to remain wilfully ignorant.
Most world maps depict Earth as a globe, using a known projection.
Round Earthers often talk about how in flat Earth airplane flights have to adjust constantly
How many do that because they genuinely think that, vs how many are just doing that to point out the stupidity of FEers claiming planes need to constantly tilt down?
Flat Earthers know that they are working in theory
No, FEers foolishly believe they are working in theory, while in reality they are working in fantasy, refusing to even try to make a hypothesis which can be tested because they know that when they do, their model falls apart as it doesn't match reality.
So yes, I am more familiar with your own system than you.
Then why do you keep spouting such ignorant garbage about it, getting even incredibly basic things wrong?
You either don't know very much about it and are vastly less familiar with it than me; or are you being intentionally dishonest by pretending there are problems when you know that what you are spouting is false.
Which is it?
Btw, youguys didn't even get Cook's circumnavigation route right. He did check the upper sections.
Wrong again.
You sure do love being wilfully ignorant don't you.
Did you bother reading what I said? Here it is again:
FEers will normally focus on his second voyage, as that included circumnavigating Antarctica, and it took a roughly 3 years, starting on 13 July 1772, and ending on 30 July 1775.
Notice how I appealed specifically to his second voyage?
What you have shown are the three voyages.
In your image, the red line is the first voyage, the green one is the second, and the blue one is the third, with the dashed portions occurring after they did.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Cook_Three_Voyages_59.png/640px-Cook_Three_Voyages_59.png)
-
They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.
Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:
How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?) (https://biogeoplanet.com/how-penguins-stay-warm/)
So you're telling me that some sick freaks made a special trip to Antarctica just to perform cruelty to animals and cut open a few penguins to see what is inside.
Either they don't really know this and are just making a guess.
Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.
-
They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.
Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:
How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?) (https://biogeoplanet.com/how-penguins-stay-warm/)
So you're telling me that some sick freaks made a special trip to Antarctica just to perform cruelty to animals and cut open a few penguins to see what is inside.
Either they don't really know this and are just making a guess.
Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.
PETA is a terrorist organization.
-
Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.
Penguins are depraved SOBs. If we didn't molest them, they would molest each other in good time anyway. If it has a hole, they will molest it. That's what penguins do.
-
They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.
Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:
How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?) (https://biogeoplanet.com/how-penguins-stay-warm/)
So you're telling me that some sick freaks made a special trip to Antarctica just to perform cruelty to animals and cut open a few penguins to see what is inside.
Either they don't really know this and are just making a guess.
Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.
Ok so you disagree with the method, but the results are still just as true. Why go all emotional and change the subject. Does it make your statements about penguins keeping from freezing to death incorrect, yes. We all would rather not harm the penguins. I would hope they did these experiments on dead penguins and not kill them, but usually the penguins are killed by being eaten by something so they may have had to kill a few. Doesn't make it better, but we weren't talking about the methods.
-
The way to prove that is to measure the length of the circles of latitude and whether they actually contract (that is, does a trip from US to China back to US take less time than a trip around the equator?
Done:
(https://i.imgur.com/fYXAbKa.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/K5blelS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PY2S6ym.png)
You can't depend on a third party projection to tell you things. You have to verify. You have to actually measure it yourself.
(http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_the_world/world_large_detailed_relief_map.jpg)
In this model, the Earth has a a horizontal and vertical taper, with lines of latitude and longitude longest when they extend from the zero point. Because of the wide shape, unlike a globe, it has a fairly wide distance before any taper.
(https://tabletopwhale.com/img/posts/19-07-08.gif)
This is a globe model. In this model, Earth is a complete circle in all directions. Extreme tapering happens, and ypu would expect that a Canada trip to Russia or Sweden would take only a few hours. We can check this by travel times, but we can only verify it by making the actual trip (you'd probably need a stealth plane that you own and to set the same speed for each flight, airlines do too many goofy stops, so the path isn't straight). This model also allows on to make a trip from Chile to Australia during its warmest season.
(https://www.freepngimg.com/thumb/earth/93077-world-area-map-free-png-hq.png)
This is a flat map. In this map, there is no taper. If we were to plow through solid land on a boat (that image :D ) it would take the same amount of time from Russia to somewhere in Canada of equal latitude heading west to east that it would take closer to the equator.
So what map do sailors and pilots use?
(https://external-preview.redd.it/Ia-T7w0UsM56gwYnYPxwmFpCKs9RZWjKX3ODwAd_kxc.jpg?auto=webp&s=530ed1c3543b7780e849d874326f02eabe59e86c)
Flat map
(https://www.boating-stpete.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/7.png)
Also flat map. There isn't any projection of curvature here. For people actually sailing, they aren't given this nonsense.
(https://dbd0051.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c518db6f-7292-4fd7-a1b1-4219c58baae2/philbrick-sinu-mollweide.jpg)
It would be utterly unhelpful. They are given a flat map or a GPS, which is also a flat map.
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ahmad_Javaid/publication/280921883/figure/download/fig6/AS:284636996489220@1444874156166/World-map-used-for-GPS-simulations.png)
No taper. Taper is for people sitting in armchairs fascinated with the idea that Earth is round, not people actually sailing the Earth.
-
They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.
Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:
How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?) (https://biogeoplanet.com/how-penguins-stay-warm/)
So you're telling me that some sick freaks made a special trip to Antarctica just to perform cruelty to animals and cut open a few penguins to see what is inside.
Either they don't really know this and are just making a guess.
Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.
Ok so you disagree with the method, but the results are still just as true. Why go all emotional and change the subject. Does it make your statements about penguins keeping from freezing to death incorrect, yes. We all would rather not harm the penguins. I would hope they did these experiments on dead penguins and not kill them, but usually the penguins are killed by being eaten by something so they may have had to kill a few. Doesn't make it better, but we weren't talking about the methods.
Either they know this through tainted methods (read legal documents about "fruit of the poisoned tree"), or they didn't do this (thank God) in which case they are (to quote a frenemy) blind guessing.
https://www.cheronislaw.com/blog/2022/05/what-is-fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-legal-doctrine/
And yes, it does matter if the scientist supposed to be preserving the natural landscape of Antarctica while they study it are instead butchering penguins.
-
They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.
Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:
How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?) (https://biogeoplanet.com/how-penguins-stay-warm/)
So you're telling me that some sick freaks made a special trip to Antarctica just to perform cruelty to animals and cut open a few penguins to see what is inside.
Either they don't really know this and are just making a guess.
Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.
Ok so you disagree with the method, but the results are still just as true. Why go all emotional and change the subject. Does it make your statements about penguins keeping from freezing to death incorrect, yes. We all would rather not harm the penguins. I would hope they did these experiments on dead penguins and not kill them, but usually the penguins are killed by being eaten by something so they may have had to kill a few. Doesn't make it better, but we weren't talking about the methods.
Either they know this through tainted methods (read legal documents about "fruit of the poisoned tree"), or they didn't do this (thank God) in which case they are (to quote a frenemy) blind guessing.
https://www.cheronislaw.com/blog/2022/05/what-is-fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-legal-doctrine/
And yes, it does matter if the scientist supposed to be preserving the natural landscape of Antarctica while they study it are instead butchering penguins.
What a limited and closed minded way of thinking. You don't like the data gathered from it so no matter what facts come out of it then it must be false and you attack the method. The method is definitely up for discussion, but the data gathered is still true and if it disagrees with your position, then you need to reevaluate your position. Or actually attack the data gathered and show how it is tainted.
-
The way to prove that is to measure the length of the circles of latitude and whether they actually contract (that is, does a trip from US to China back to US take less time than a trip around the equator?
Done:
(https://i.imgur.com/fYXAbKa.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/K5blelS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PY2S6ym.png)
You can't depend on a third party projection to tell you things. You have to verify. You have to actually measure it yourself.
What have you measured? Are you saying that no one can rely on any maps because they haven't personally measured stuff? You realize the insanity in that notion, right?
No taper. Taper is for people sitting in armchairs fascinated with the idea that Earth is round, not people actually sailing the Earth.
You are wildly wrong here and ridiculously ignorant. People actually sailing the earth use nautical maps, like these that are used by everyone in that biz - Take a clear notice of what I called out with the red box:
(https://i.imgur.com/g8f53xv.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/31GEf3L.jpg)
The North American Datum (NAD) is the horizontal datum now used to define the geodetic network in North America. A datum is a formal description of the shape of the Earth along with an "anchor" point for the coordinate system.
Because the Earth is curved and in GIS we deal with flat map projections, we need to accommodate both the curved and flat views of the world. In surveying and geodesy, we accurately define these properties with geodetic datums.
We begin modeling the Earth with a sphere or ellipsoid. Over time, surveyors have gathered a massive collection of surface measurements to more reliably estimate the ellipsoid.
When you combine these measurements, we arrive at a geodetic datum. Datums precisely specify each location on Earth’s surface in latitude and longitude. For example, NAD27, NAD83, and WGS84 are geodetic datums.
If you were creating nautical maps 10's of thousands of ships would be lost at sea.
-
Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.
Why would they need to answer to an organisation which is one of the cruellest to animals?
An organisation which steals pets just to murder them?
An organisation which quite happily runs slaughter houses and falsely calls them shelters?
In this model, the Earth has a a horizontal and vertical taper, with lines of latitude and longitude longest when they extend from the zero point. Because of the wide shape, unlike a globe, it has a fairly wide distance before any taper.
This is a globe model. In this model, Earth is a complete circle in all directions. Extreme tapering happens, and ypu would expect that a Canada trip to Russia or Sweden would take only a few hours. We can check this by travel times, but we can only verify it by making the actual trip (you'd probably need a stealth plane that you own and to set the same speed for each flight, airlines do too many goofy stops, so the path isn't straight). This model also allows on to make a trip from Chile to Australia during its warmest season.
This is a flat map. In this map, there is no taper. If we were to plow through solid land on a boat (that image :D ) it would take the same amount of time from Russia to somewhere in Canada of equal latitude heading west to east that it would take closer to the equator.
So what map do sailors and pilots use?
Flat map
Also flat map. There isn't any projection of curvature here. For people actually sailing, they aren't given this nonsense.
It would be utterly unhelpful. They are given a flat map or a GPS, which is also a flat map.
No taper. Taper is for people sitting in armchairs fascinated with the idea that Earth is round, not people actually sailing the Earth.
You failing to comprehend how map projections work doesn't mean that all those projections don't agree.
It just shows you are being wilfully ignorant, like you are of so many things.
It also doesn't mean Earth is flat.
The shape of Earth is incredibly important for those sailing and flying long distance on Earth, as if you don't account for it you will no idea how long the journey will take or how much fuel you will need, or what the best route is.
Either they know this through tainted methods
You mean methods you don't like.
But that means they do know it.
-
You can't depend on a third party projection to tell you things. You have to verify. You have to actually measure it yourself.
What have you measured? Are you saying that no one can rely on any maps because they haven't personally measured stuff? You realize the insanity in that notion, right?
When you combine these measurements, we arrive at a geodetic datum. Datums precisely specify each location on Earth’s surface in latitude and longitude. For example, NAD27, NAD83, and WGS84 are geodetic datums.[/i]
If you were creating nautical maps 10's of thousands of ships would be lost at sea.
Listen, I can create numbers out of my ass too.
How many people died of COVID in 2022 so far?
12 million people
The year before?
36 million
2020?
24.56 million
I looked at no charts or statistics. I just came up with those numbers out of thin air. The key to good fake statistics is making them sound believable. The other is making charts that have an intended effect.
(https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/dn11639-2_800.jpg)
(Notice the dramatic effect, and then look at how the graph really only pertains to climate increase of 0.6 degrees over 150 years)
You may think that I'm exaggerating. But we compared the actual COVID figures to the population of a town. It turned out that they had three times as many cases as that town's population. Yes, they're pulling numbers out of their ass too. Specifically, they were doing so in order to cause a hysteria.
This, my friend, is why it is utterly irrelevant what number than computer spits out. You have to actually fly the route.
Here's another example. We have a time lapse of the future.
But these are projections. We may project that cities will continue growing over the next 50 years. The math may show us a clear picture of this. But we don't actually know whether in the next 2 years there wouldn't be some major social upheaval, and now we all live in trees or something. Projections are GUESSES, not accurate data. Projections are the same as a weather forecast. They are made by going into your own head and doing math, or by using computers to do the same thing. Yes measuring a tangent line does give you an okay idea of the height of an object. But if you climb it instead, you figure out that you thought the angle of sight to the tree was 30° when actually it was 34.5° and this changes the height of the tree. You also forgot that the true height of the tree involves its roots. Going to measure the tree yourself by uprooting it, you get a quite different result entirely. Projections in math don't matter.
As for that lovely disclaimer about working to make a circular map, it sounds like something they were forced to say. But no, that couldn't be right. It's not like there is some large bureaucratic organization or something...
(https://www.logolynx.com/images/logolynx/f9/f937deb874d9e1efaa8a243e281f3a85.png)
-
You can't depend on a third party projection to tell you things. You have to verify. You have to actually measure it yourself.
What have you measured? Are you saying that no one can rely on any maps because they haven't personally measured stuff? You realize the insanity in that notion, right?
When you combine these measurements, we arrive at a geodetic datum. Datums precisely specify each location on Earth’s surface in latitude and longitude. For example, NAD27, NAD83, and WGS84 are geodetic datums.[/i]
If you were creating nautical maps 10's of thousands of ships would be lost at sea.
Listen, I can create numbers out of my ass too.
So you're say that map makers just make up all of their measurements? Yet they work?
How many people died of COVID in 2022 so far?
12 million people
The year before?
36 million
2020?
24.56 million
I looked at no charts or statistics. I just came up with those numbers out of thin air. The key to good fake statistics is making them sound believable. The other is making charts that have an intended effect.
(https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/dn11639-2_800.jpg)
(Notice the dramatic effect, and then look at how the graph really only pertains to climate increase of 0.6 degrees over 150 years)
(https://i.imgur.com/KlGLIpt.gif)
A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all of the oceans, the atmosphere, and the land masses by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.
You may think that I'm exaggerating. But we compared the actual COVID figures to the population of a town. It turned out that they had three times as many cases as that town's population. Yes, they're pulling numbers out of their ass too. Specifically, they were doing so in order to cause a hysteria.
Who is "we"?
What town?
What numbers?
Who is making up numbers now?
-
Listen, I can create numbers out of my ass too.
Which doesn't mean everyone else is.
You not liking numbers doesn't mean they are fake.
This, my friend, is why it is utterly irrelevant what number than computer spits out. You have to actually fly the route.
Like the plenty of routes in the southern hemisphere which show the FE is nonsense?
-
How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?) (https://biogeoplanet.com/how-penguins-stay-warm/)
Quick question.
Generally speaking penguin survivability testing is within our reach in terms of dollars.
If oxygen was setup for the penguin how many days do you think the aquatic bird would last in a commercial freeze dryer?
"Typically, the operational temperature of condensers in commercial freeze-dryers is around 208.15 K (− 65 °C)."
-
How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?) (https://biogeoplanet.com/how-penguins-stay-warm/)
Quick question.
Generally speaking penguin survivability testing is within our reach in terms of dollars.
If oxygen was setup for the penguin how many days do you think the aquatic bird would last in a commercial freeze dryer?
"Typically, the operational temperature of condensers in commercial freeze-dryers is around 208.15 K (− 65 °C)."
It wouldn't survive, unless the devices was significantly modified. Most of these devices are anoxic zones and not designed for living things. The penguin might survive the cold but at best have severe hypoxia.
-
How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?) (https://biogeoplanet.com/how-penguins-stay-warm/)
Quick question.
Generally speaking penguin survivability testing is within our reach in terms of dollars.
If oxygen was setup for the penguin how many days do you think the aquatic bird would last in a commercial freeze dryer?
"Typically, the operational temperature of condensers in commercial freeze-dryers is around 208.15 K (− 65 °C)."
It wouldn't survive, unless the devices was significantly modified. Most of these devices are anoxic zones and not designed for living things. The penguin might survive the cold but at best have severe hypoxia.
Since when are you a Penguin expert?
Why don't you run your ignorant theory by these folks and see what you come up with:
https://www.penguinsinternational.org/
(https://i.imgur.com/MxLAy90.png)
-
Listen, I can create numbers out of my ass too.
Which doesn't mean everyone else is.
You not liking numbers doesn't mean they are fake.
This, my friend, is why it is utterly irrelevant what number than computer spits out. You have to actually fly the route.
Like the plenty of routes in the southern hemisphere which show the FE is nonsense?
I don't dislike numbers.
I dislike falsehood.
I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.
So, yes, I know crap when I see it.
In either climate graph, they are artificially inflated so that the lines are at the top of this graph. This graph should be in a scale of 10. If the degrees are 10 degrees warmer on average, this is a cause for alarm. Maybe. 0.6 or even 1.0 is not. Which would make all of these flatter than shown. Consider the economically ruinous plans proposed. Reducing all CO2 emissions to zero by a certain date (for barely 1 degree over 150 years, where it cannot be proved to even be human made).
"Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective.
Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day."
Converting to electric cars, even though such things involve rare earth parts that are more difficult to recycle, and often have toxic byproducts. Yeah, you guys are smoking crack if you think this is a better solution than simply continuing to offer incentives for car companies to make better emissions control valves. During Biden's big electric push, gas prices doubled or in some cases nearly tripled. When he finally eased off (probably to try to win an election), the cost tapered off significantly. This almost made many Americans broke. And if we're being honest, most people can't afford electric cars. As it was, the screwed-up economy made it so the average car was $10000+
This heavy cost is simply not worth the tiny effect it has on the environment. Even if we completely stopped burning things, making all energy systems shut down and threatening to freeze all of us to death in our homes, in one day, a volcano produces more waste than we do in 250 years.
By the way....
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2zxMmhuJFkk/VUk-tfRVvrI/AAAAAAACB2U/ABJdEwVrxys/s800/12.png)
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
For 50 years, climate models have been wrong.
Since when are you a Penguin expert?
(https://i.imgur.com/MxLAy90.png)
So according to this diagram, if we are going by the ice wall theory, penguins basically only live on the coastal edges of the ice wall.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GTy8YW-9jhg/VVzcKDIgj3I/AAAAAAAAEMM/SXv0Q1Wd2R0/s1600/antarctica%2Bblog%2B-%2Bflat%2Bearth%2Baerial%2Bcircumnaviation%2Bflight%2Bplan.jpg)
There is no proof then, that they are even near these -70 degree temperatures.
-
Listen, I can create numbers out of my ass too.
Which doesn't mean everyone else is.
You not liking numbers doesn't mean they are fake.
This, my friend, is why it is utterly irrelevant what number than computer spits out. You have to actually fly the route.
Like the plenty of routes in the southern hemisphere which show the FE is nonsense?
I don't dislike numbers.
I dislike falsehood.
I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.
So, yes, I know crap when I see it.
Yes, you know crap when you see it because they were your own crap numbers. Who is dumb enough to enter a science fair without making any kind of measurements anyway?
Kind of hypocritical to say you dislike falsehoods when you freely admit to making falsehoods.
Just because you know you made up your own numbers doesn't mean that everyone else on the planet makes up their own. Not everyone is as dishonest as you to make up numbers, especially for such a low-stakes endeavor as a kids science fair. God knows what you make up now as an adult if you even are one. Probably 10 times worse.
As evidenced by your remarks about covid numbers in some unnamed town. You totally made that up too. When will you stop making up things or is this just something you can't shake since childhood?
So according to this diagram, if we are going by the ice wall theory, penguins basically only live on the coastal edges of the ice wall.
Apparently they wander inland about 50+ miles max. Has nothing to do with an icewall.
Again, contact some folks who actually study such creatures instead of just making things up. Have you ever studied anything? I kinda think not. But you know what, lots of other people do.
There is no proof then, that they are even near these -70 degree temperatures.
Because they are not near -70 degree temperatures. If you paid attention for just a minute, you might learn something:
We all know that penguins endure and survive freezing temperatures in the Antarctic, these can range as low as -70˚C in the centre to -20 ˚C around the coast. Their bodies stay warm due to their insulating layers of blubber which lies just beneath the skin.
See that, -70˚C in the centre. -20˚C around the coast. Where are begins found? 50+ from the coast. Where's the centre? Over 1000 miles from the coast.
-
How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?) (https://biogeoplanet.com/how-penguins-stay-warm/)
Quick question.
Generally speaking penguin survivability testing is within our reach in terms of dollars.
If oxygen was setup for the penguin how many days do you think the aquatic bird would last in a commercial freeze dryer?
"Typically, the operational temperature of condensers in commercial freeze-dryers is around 208.15 K (− 65 °C)."
It wouldn't survive, unless the devices was significantly modified. Most of these devices are anoxic zones and not designed for living things. The penguin might survive the cold but at best have severe hypoxia.
You really are great at ignoring things aren't you?
-
I don't dislike numbers.
I dislike falsehood.
You love falsehoods. You promote them all the time here. All while fleeing from reality.
I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.
So what you are saying is you love falsehoods and even have a history of using them.
So, yes, I know crap when I see it.
No, you don't.
You have an example of where you have produced crap, and are now just dismissing things like it as crap, even if it is vastly different.
It is like saying that you have seen a sheet of white paper, and now every time you see a white object you think it is a sheet of paper.
This graph should be in a scale of 10.
WHY?
Because you want it to be?
Because you want to try and minimise the change?
And would that be 10 C or 10 F?
If the degrees are 10 degrees warmer on average, this is a cause for alarm. Maybe. 0.6 or even 1.0 is not.
Based on what?
If the average temperature of Earth increased by 10 C, it would be almost total devastation.
even a part of a degree can be quite significant.
Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.
Pure BS.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
For 50 years, climate models have been wrong.
So we can add yet another thing to the ever growing list of things you entirely fail to understand.
-
It wouldn't survive,
I looked around and now see the principle of freeze drying would kill the penguin/any living thing. In the search I noticed some used, ultra-low laboratory freezers can go -80C. A lab freezer would work for testing but would need two small holes for air exchange... destroying the freezer in the process of testing.
Not to introduce conspiracy but for some reason average folks cannot get penguins. .gov has created a condition making penguin testing impossible.
We'd have to start from scratch with poster Deadeye getting eggs though his/her network. Otherwise penguin testing is out of the question.
No Penguins currently listed for placement
https://www.exoticanimalsforsale.net/penguins-for-sale.asp
-
I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.
You didn't go to college. Science fair? Made up graphs? Sure thing. So you lie about a story where the plot is that you lied.
-
I don't dislike numbers.
I dislike falsehood.
Haha!
I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.
Wow. Admitting to being a liar or lying about been a liar. Neither is great is it?
So, yes, I know crap when I see it.
You mean write it?
In either climate graph, they are artificially inflated so that the lines are at the top of this graph. This graph should be in a scale of 10. If the degrees are 10 degrees warmer on average, this is a cause for alarm. Maybe. 0.6 or even 1.0 is not. Which would make all of these flatter than shown. Consider the economically ruinous plans proposed. Reducing all CO2 emissions to zero by a certain date (for barely 1 degree over 150 years, where it cannot be proved to even be human made).
Hilarious. You were arguing in another thread that Celsius was a useless scale because 1F could make such a big difference. Your examples then were rubbish, but global temperature is something where a small change makes a massive difference. And yes, we do know it’s us.
Converting to electric cars, even though such things involve rare earth parts that are more difficult to recycle, and often have toxic byproducts. Yeah, you guys are smoking crack if you think this is a better solution than simply continuing to offer incentives for car companies to make better emissions control valves. During Biden's big electric push, gas prices doubled or in some cases nearly tripled. When he finally eased off (probably to try to win an election), the cost tapered off significantly. This almost made many Americans broke. And if we're being honest, most people can't afford electric cars. As it was, the screwed-up economy made it so the average car was $10000+
This heavy cost is simply not worth the tiny effect it has on the environment. Even if we completely stopped burning things, making all energy systems shut down and threatening to freeze all of us to death in our homes, in one day, a volcano produces more waste than we do in 250 years.
The volcano thing is bollocks.
If that were true, we wouldn’t even notice the concentration change of CO2 in the atmosphere tracking with increasing industrialization, but we would see enormous jumps with volcanic eruptions. Volcanic activity hasn’t massively increased over the last century, human emissions have.
By the way....
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2zxMmhuJFkk/VUk-tfRVvrI/AAAAAAACB2U/ABJdEwVrxys/s800/12.png)
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
For 50 years, climate models have been wrong.
Ah, a 7 year old denier meme! I thought you said you knew crap when you see it.
This was a classic example of cherry picking. 1998 was at the time a big record temperature jump, but it soon became the norm, and we’re now very unlikely to ever see a year that cold. This graph deliberately used it as the starting year to hide the long term trend.
It’s been known all along that there are decadal scale oscillations in the ocean-atmosphere system, where more heat goes into the ocean and then is released. ie surface temperatures rise quickly, then flatten out, then jump up again. The first IPCC report back in 1990 explicitly said this is to be expected.
You’ve been listening to paid shills of the fossil fuel industry.
-
I don't dislike numbers.
I dislike falsehood.
Haha!
I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.
Wow. Admitting to being a liar or lying about been a liar. Neither is great is it?
So, yes, I know crap when I see it.
You mean write it?
In either climate graph, they are artificially inflated so that the lines are at the top of this graph. This graph should be in a scale of 10. If the degrees are 10 degrees warmer on average, this is a cause for alarm. Maybe. 0.6 or even 1.0 is not. Which would make all of these flatter than shown. Consider the economically ruinous plans proposed. Reducing all CO2 emissions to zero by a certain date (for barely 1 degree over 150 years, where it cannot be proved to even be human made).
Hilarious. You were arguing in another thread that Celsius was a useless scale because 1F could make such a big difference. Your examples then were rubbish, but global temperature is something where a small change makes a massive difference. And yes, we do know it’s us.
Converting to electric cars, even though such things involve rare earth parts that are more difficult to recycle, and often have toxic byproducts. Yeah, you guys are smoking crack if you think this is a better solution than simply continuing to offer incentives for car companies to make better emissions control valves. During Biden's big electric push, gas prices doubled or in some cases nearly tripled. When he finally eased off (probably to try to win an election), the cost tapered off significantly. This almost made many Americans broke. And if we're being honest, most people can't afford electric cars. As it was, the screwed-up economy made it so the average car was $10000+
This heavy cost is simply not worth the tiny effect it has on the environment. Even if we completely stopped burning things, making all energy systems shut down and threatening to freeze all of us to death in our homes, in one day, a volcano produces more waste than we do in 250 years.
The volcano thing is bollocks.
If that were true, we wouldn’t even notice the concentration change of CO2 in the atmosphere tracking with increasing industrialization, but we would see enormous jumps with volcanic eruptions. Volcanic activity hasn’t massively increased over the last century, human emissions have.
By the way....
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2zxMmhuJFkk/VUk-tfRVvrI/AAAAAAACB2U/ABJdEwVrxys/s800/12.png)
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
For 50 years, climate models have been wrong.
Ah, a 7 year old denier meme! I thought you said you knew crap when you see it.
This was a classic example of cherry picking. 1998 was at the time a big record temperature jump, but it soon became the norm, and we’re now very unlikely to ever see a year that cold. This graph deliberately used it as the starting year to hide the long term trend.
It’s been known all along that there are decadal scale oscillations in the ocean-atmosphere system, where more heat goes into the ocean and then is released. ie surface temperatures rise quickly, then flatten out, then jump up again. The first IPCC report back in 1990 explicitly said this is to be expected.
You’ve been listening to paid shills of the fossil fuel industry.
Uhhhh, no? You've been listening to paid shills of the electric industry. None of which have actually done themath on just how economically disastrous it would be to implement their plans.
And not just economically disastrous. ENVIRONMENTALLY disastrous. As in, if you actually cared about the Earth, rather than use "the planet" as an excuse for woke agenda, you would be able to see just how terrible these ideas are.
1. To make a single electric car involves bulldozing large tracts of land in order to find enough for an engine made from battery parts. This is literally a battery that size of a car engine.
2. Such engines might look clean at the consumer end, but in the disposal end and the priducer end, the effect on the environment is disgusting.
https://fee.org/articles/the-environmental-downside-of-electric-vehicles/
https://axlewise.com/are-electric-car-batteries-recycled/
(Basically, if you don't know what to do with these batteries, you can't just leave them in a junkyard, they leach nasty chemicals into the soil; to say nothing of the working with dangerous chemicals to produce the machine)
By contrast, a gas car is mostly just metal parts creating a combustion reaction.
3. EVs are declared "clean" simply because we don't see any CO2 belching out. But for every hour of extra energy that a power plant produces, this happens.
(https://www.icastusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PolutionPostimage.png)
See this? Now see this.
(https://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/04/cars-cause-air-pollution.jpg)
Okay, so how many hours does it take to charge an EV? 10-21 hours barring a very expensive plug. And unlike the energy produced directly by combusting only a few gallons of fuel, the amount of energy diverted through power grids is very inefficient. It loses juice for each mile it travels. So 10+ hours of power plants. As more and more EVs are on the road, the energy use gets higher and high each hour, until...
(https://nonprofitquarterly.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/i-cant-breathe.jpg)
Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant. But people saw a few old cars and were concerned.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/12/08/electric-vehicle-deforestation-global-climate-pledges/
9000 ACRES of forest were mowed down to make room for mining these materials.
Meanwhile, Gore and Gates tell everyone else to conserve, while they fly around on jets preaching climate.
-
Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant.
Just what makes you think cars were more energy efficient than a power plant?
-
Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant.
Just what makes you think cars were more energy efficient than a power plant?
Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are? Metal, in general, creates resistance, meaning energy tends to get lost or converted into other energy (such as thermal). This means the farther energy travels, the more inefficient it becomes, and more you need some kind of relay station to disperse it along to other areas. These might in turn try to recharge the electricity, but some of the original is always lost. Just as you are fond of telling me that the solar doesn't scorch us all to death or pulling sand from the Earth because distance, distance in electronics means wasted energy. I could start a significant fire using a open brick wood stove and about 25 branches and maybe two logs. Not large branches either, like typical holly branches. If I have a charcoal grille, the closed space makes this overkill. Meanwhile, that energy is spread too thin if I were to try to pipe that same energy to help out my sister in a town roughly 90 miles away. They would not be able to heat their house, because all that heat is piped miles away. I would need to collect significantly more fuel, and resistance means some is always lost. In the experiment they ran, superconductors ran the same fuel for years. But this was a fairly small circuit (close to the source, I imagine), and the article concluded that these wires were expensive to make and rather brittle.
This same principle applies to every channel, including horticulture. We have something called sink-source. It means that if you chop random branches of a peach tree, the remaining branches produce a bigger tree. It also means that if branches are overextended, fewer nutrients will supply to the teee without more water, more leaves for sunlight, and more nutrients from the soil. Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source (NIMBY dictates it usually wil be).
The point being that each time the energy is spread, some is lost. Biden wanted to burn gas at power plants to produce for EVs. This literally tanked the gas prices as it was totally inefficient. EVs take hours to charge, and suddenly we have screwed up system.
When people have harebrained ideas, and force a nation to adopt them, everyone suffers.
-
Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant.
Just what makes you think cars were more energy efficient than a power plant?
Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are? Metal, in general, creates resistance, meaning energy tends to get lost or converted into other energy (such as thermal). This means the farther energy travels, the more inefficient it becomes, and more you need some kind of relay station to disperse it along to other areas. These might in turn try to recharge the electricity, but some of the original is always lost. Just as you are fond of telling me that the solar doesn't scorch us all to death or pulling sand from the Earth because distance, distance in electronics means wasted energy. I could start a significant fire using a open brick wood stove and about 25 branches and maybe two logs. Not large branches either, like typical holly branches. If I have a charcoal grille, the closed space makes this overkill. Meanwhile, that energy is spread too thin if I were to try to pipe that same energy to help out my sister in a town roughly 90 miles away. They would not be able to heat their house, because all that heat is piped miles away. I would need to collect significantly more fuel, and resistance means some is always lost. In the experiment they ran, superconductors ran the same fuel for years. But this was a fairly small circuit (close to the source, I imagine), and the article concluded that these wires were expensive to make and rather brittle.
This same principle applies to every channel, including horticulture. We have something called sink-source. It means that if you chop random branches of a peach tree, the remaining branches produce a bigger tree. It also means that if branches are overextended, fewer nutrients will supply to the teee without more water, more leaves for sunlight, and more nutrients from the soil. Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source (NIMBY dictates it usually wil be).
The point being that each time the energy is spread, some is lost. Biden wanted to burn gas at power plants to produce for EVs. This literally tanked the gas prices as it was totally inefficient. EVs take hours to charge, and suddenly we have screwed up system.
When people have harebrained ideas, and force a nation to adopt them, everyone suffers.
My EV takes around 18 mins or so on a rapid charge to go from 10% to 80%. Sure if you hook your EV up to a home socket it will indeed takes hours, but with a standard 7KW unit do it over night and it’s no problem. With a range of over 300 miles for day to day commuting it’s ideal, though for those in cold regions the range is less unless your battery has sone form of heat pump installed. Reading your ramble I fail to see what point you are attempting to make.
-
Uhhhh, no? You've been listening to paid shills of the electric industry. None of which have actually done themath on just how economically disastrous it would be to implement their plans.
And not just economically disastrous. ENVIRONMENTALLY disastrous. As in, if you actually cared about the Earth, rather than use "the planet" as an excuse for woke agenda, you would be able to see just how terrible these ideas are.
1. To make a single electric car involves bulldozing large tracts of land in order to find enough for an engine made from battery parts. This is literally a battery that size of a car engine.
2. Such engines might look clean at the consumer end, but in the disposal end and the priducer end, the effect on the environment is disgusting.
https://fee.org/articles/the-environmental-downside-of-electric-vehicles/
https://axlewise.com/are-electric-car-batteries-recycled/
(Basically, if you don't know what to do with these batteries, you can't just leave them in a junkyard, they leach nasty chemicals into the soil; to say nothing of the working with dangerous chemicals to produce the machine)
By contrast, a gas car is mostly just metal parts creating a combustion reaction.
3. EVs are declared "clean" simply because we don't see any CO2 belching out. But for every hour of extra energy that a power plant produces, this happens.
(https://www.icastusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PolutionPostimage.png)
See this? Now see this.
(https://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/04/cars-cause-air-pollution.jpg)
Okay, so how many hours does it take to charge an EV? 10-21 hours barring a very expensive plug. And unlike the energy produced directly by combusting only a few gallons of fuel, the amount of energy diverted through power grids is very inefficient. It loses juice for each mile it travels. So 10+ hours of power plants. As more and more EVs are on the road, the energy use gets higher and high each hour, until...
(https://nonprofitquarterly.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/i-cant-breathe.jpg)
Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant. But people saw a few old cars and were concerned.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/12/08/electric-vehicle-deforestation-global-climate-pledges/
9000 ACRES of forest were mowed down to make room for mining these materials.
Meanwhile, Gore and Gates tell everyone else to conserve, while they fly around on jets preaching climate.
I knew the paid shill comment was going to be blindly thrown back at me, but I didn’t even mention electric cars or any other proposed solutions to climate change. I was talking purely about the disinformation campaign of climate science by various lobby groups working for the fossil fuel industry.
You actually linked to one of their articles. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a lobby group funded by the likes of Exxon and Koch Industries. Along with other arseholes like Heartland and the GWPF, they actively promote crap to discredit real climate research.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
That 18 years of no global warming image is a classic example of the nonsense they peddle. As I said they deliberately cherry picked the then exceptionally hot El Niño year of 1998 as the start date to hide the trend. Look at global temperature charts over a longer period and the rising trend is absolutely obvious. It was quite clear even at the time, but especially with subsequent increases in temperature.
I note you didn’t try to address a single one of the points I made.
-
Electric vehicles (EVs) are more efficient than their gasoline-powered counterparts. An EV electric drive system is only responsible for a 15% to 20% energy loss compared to 64% to 75% for a gasoline engine. EVs also use regenerative braking to recapture and reuse energy that normally would be lost in braking and waste no energy idling.
(https://i.imgur.com/aJvr6fd.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/K8GDBxT.png)
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml
-
Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are?
So you have no idea what you are talking about and are now trying to use buzzwords to sound smart.
Got it.
Where are the superconductors in a gas powered car?
Where are the superconductors in a power plant?
In order for your argument to work, you need the powerplant itself to be less efficient, and that is what you claimed.
Not that the transmission losses result in the overall system being less efficient.
You claimed that a gas car is more efficient than a powerplant.
If you do want to focus on the distribution, you need to actually know what the transmission losses are.
And for the most part (i.e. the majority of the world) it is more fuel efficient to burn gas in a gas powerplant and transfer that electricity to an electric heater to heat a home, than it is to heat the home with gas directly.
Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source.
Only if you have purely passive components.
-
Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are?
So you have no idea what you are talking about and are now trying to use buzzwords to sound smart.
Got it.
Where are the superconductors in a gas powered car?
Where are the superconductors in a power plant?
In order for your argument to work, you need the powerplant itself to be less efficient, and that is what you claimed.
Not that the transmission losses result in the overall system being less efficient.
You claimed that a gas car is more efficient than a powerplant.
If you do want to focus on the distribution, you need to actually know what the transmission losses are.
And for the most part (i.e. the majority of the world) it is more fuel efficient to burn gas in a gas powerplant and transfer that electricity to an electric heater to heat a home, than it is to heat the home with gas directly.
Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source.
Only if you have purely passive components.
The wiring. The power lines.
Not the plant.
I'm talking about wasted energy.
(https://blogs.ext.vt.edu/tree-fruit-horticulture/files/2018/05/carb-model-583x1024.png)
The roots are also a source. If the roots have to go like a dandelion to get water, it's gonna take real effort for the plant to survive.
Likewise, if you have to plug in a car to juice it up, instead of burning fuel, all of this energy has to travel from the power plant to your car, spending hours upon hours to charge.
You know, if you'd bothered to research EVs, you sould discover why nobody but the most woke actually want them.
- They're not very affordable
- They sometimes literally burst into flames
- They open people up to easy robbery as they either have to sit in place for hours at a station, make it back home (or to a hotel which has enough energy to plug all those cars and not refuse to risk its bottom line (right...)), or be stranded at the side of the road. Btw, some people need to drive across the country on business. But the range of an EV is 200 miles, after which you wait hours for a recharge.
- It turns out that during cold months, they are spending all of their energy trying to conserve battery, and the car can't keep you warm
- Oh yeah, and you're kidding yourself by not being able to see the source of power.
-
The wiring. The power lines.
Not the plant.
You were talking about the powerplant, not the transmission losses or the system.
And like so many things, you want to just focus on a single effect and ignore all others.
Truly pathetic.
If you want to actually consider which wastes more energy you need to consider both generation and transmission losses, for both systems, and what the source of electric power is.
-
The wiring. The power lines.
Not the plant.
You were addressing the power plant.
Here's your original claim [emphasis added], the one that that started this branch of the discussion, near the end of a long post:
Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant. But people saw a few old cars and were concerned.
Power plant. That's what you said.
If you want to include electric transmission losses, you also need to consider fuel costs for transportation of the liquid fuel burned by all those IC engines to make a meaningful comparison.
Going back to your claim, you may not realize it, but engine design is always a compromise between often-competing considerations. A very significant consideration for the engines used in individual automobiles is mobility, which drives selection of fuel type, weight, and cost.
Some considerations: natural gas is a cleaner fuel than liquid, oil-based fuels, which reduces emissions for the equivalent amount of output, but is not as convenient as diesel or gasoline for automobiles because the energy density of those liquid fuels is much, much higher at room temperature and atmospheric pressure; storing enough of those liquids in those conditions to provide reasonable range is far easier than an sufficient amount of NG, too. Also, heavier engines can be made more thermodynamically efficient than lighter ones, but weight of an engine is a very important consideration when it has to move itself; this is not a large consideration (if any at all) with a fixed plant. Automobile engines are optimized for mobility and sufficient enough power for the intended purpose. In general, fixed plants are optimized for other factors, like overall efficiency and emissions, and are often scaled to a size where efficiency can be optimized. A large turbine engine in a properly-designed fixed installation is much more mechanically and thermally efficient than a bunch of small, mobile engines of any practical type. Thus, large fixed turbines (and even large conventional fixed engines) can be - and usually are - much more efficient in converting fuel into useful power than mobile engines.
A good summary, with further links, was been published by Forbes back in 2018 ([sarcasm] Forbes is well-known for its liberal slant and fringe-idea wokitude. [/sarcasm]).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2018/08/19/myths-and-shibboleths-about-electric-vehicles-the-long-tailpipe-theory/?sh=1d8f4c757f26 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2018/08/19/myths-and-shibboleths-about-electric-vehicles-the-long-tailpipe-theory/?sh=1d8f4c757f26)
Grid losses do factor into the overall fuel efficiency of electric cars, but, then, not all electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, and the fuel consumed in transporting motor fuel from refineries to individual dispensing points and then pumping it into individual vehicle fuel tanks is not negligible, either.
-
Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant.
Just what makes you think cars were more energy efficient than a power plant?
Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are? Metal, in general, creates resistance, meaning energy tends to get lost or converted into other energy (such as thermal). This means the farther energy travels, the more inefficient it becomes, and more you need some kind of relay station to disperse it along to other areas. These might in turn try to recharge the electricity, but some of the original is always lost. Just as you are fond of telling me that the solar doesn't scorch us all to death or pulling sand from the Earth because distance, distance in electronics means wasted energy. I could start a significant fire using a open brick wood stove and about 25 branches and maybe two logs. Not large branches either, like typical holly branches. If I have a charcoal grille, the closed space makes this overkill. Meanwhile, that energy is spread too thin if I were to try to pipe that same energy to help out my sister in a town roughly 90 miles away. They would not be able to heat their house, because all that heat is piped miles away. I would need to collect significantly more fuel, and resistance means some is always lost. In the experiment they ran, superconductors ran the same fuel for years. But this was a fairly small circuit (close to the source, I imagine), and the article concluded that these wires were expensive to make and rather brittle.
This same principle applies to every channel, including horticulture. We have something called sink-source. It means that if you chop random branches of a peach tree, the remaining branches produce a bigger tree. It also means that if branches are overextended, fewer nutrients will supply to the teee without more water, more leaves for sunlight, and more nutrients from the soil. Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source (NIMBY dictates it usually wil be).
The point being that each time the energy is spread, some is lost. Biden wanted to burn gas at power plants to produce for EVs. This literally tanked the gas prices as it was totally inefficient. EVs take hours to charge, and suddenly we have screwed up system.
When people have harebrained ideas, and force a nation to adopt them, everyone suffers.
My EV takes around 18 mins or so on a rapid charge to go from 10% to 80%. Sure if you hook your EV up to a home socket it will indeed takes hours, but with a standard 7KW unit do it over night and it’s no problem. With a range of over 300 miles for day to day commuting it’s ideal, though for those in cold regions the range is less unless your battery has sone form of heat pump installed. Reading your ramble I fail to see what point you are attempting to make.
So you're basically proving that you're spoiled, and have willingly upgraded your electric, a process that takes most of us thousands of dollars, not to mention the cost of the vehicle itself (outside our price range, and my folkd can afford to care for me even though I've stopped working).
The point, since you asked, is that outside your little bubble, actual people have actual problems traveling. Or to be more specific, attempt to quote this number after a job requires you to go more than 500 miles through less developed area. Because in order for this system to work requires urbanization of every area in the country. All of them have to be on a pretty tight electrical grid. This not only isn't feasible, it's undesirable. This would involve bulldozing vast stretched of land to setup the latest electric lines and transformers. And some people like forests and fields, largely tried to escape the city? Gas power requires a fraction of the infrastructure, and conservation types can have their small towns and quaint roads.
I guarantee you will curse your device if you are forced to make a long trip during the winter.
First, not all charging stations will be as good as yours. Enjoy sitting in a spot for several hours.
Second, as soon as it begins to snow, the cold will cut the battery's efficiency. With a gas car, you can also use the heater, because it is a side-effect of the extra energy. With an electric car, if you turn on the heater, your range gets cut by 40% (and once you're out, the heater is gone). Uhhh yeah, I've driven in 5 below before. I don't recall having to turn off my heater or not get where I needed. In fact, I remember going all the way through a blizzard to another state.
https://climaterealism.com/2021/06/california-dreamin-meets-reality-dont-charge-your-electric-vehicle-during-heat-waves/
Maybe when you get outside that bubble of yours, you'll understand that the average EV is about four times what people are likely to pay even for the best new car (ours was $10k, whereas the price quote for an EV was more like $40k), and then there's the price of travel into less built-up zones, which you of course expect to want to urbanize to meet your demands.
Talk about entitled.
Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant. But people saw a few old cars and were concerned.
Yes, that's right. The inefficiency of power traveling from point A (we're saying it's solar) to an entire town (point B), where one guy is hoping to charge his electric car all the day long because he doesn't have a fancy 18 min charger. The town doesn't actually get enough power from solar, so while they ostensibly have that to feel virtuous, point C (backup power source, let's say fossil fuels) also supplies point B.
Now point B is Cali, so they've switched in San Francisco from just one or two cars being electric to... well, all of them. Now everyone shifts their schedule because the amount of time to charge screws with people's busy lives. And now the solar cells are woefully inadequate, and Point C has to work overtime. Only because of distance, and a thing called resistance, point D (another fossil fuel plant, kept out of sight because we want to fool the public into thinking their solar power does a bit of good) is now burning even more fosdil fuel. And then winter comes.
(https://twodoulas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/WINTER-IS-COMING.jpg)
They blamed Texas's power failure on fossil fuels (claiming deregulation of energy was the problem). No ummm, they did solar and gas and a ton of different ideas. But uhhh...
The fundamental reason for Texas’s blackouts is correlated grid risk: The kind of winter storm we currently are experiencing — unusual but hardly unprecedented — drives up demand for electricity while simultaneously driving down the available supply of the stuff. The system can withstand a spike in demand, and it can withstand a dip in supply, but it cannot withstand both at the same time. Hence the blackouts.
In addition to the usual troubles of downed power lines and the like, electricity plants are having a hard time getting fuel or using the fuel they have, including natural gas and coal. So-called renewables such as wind power and solar perform poorly, or do not perform at all, in such conditions, while natural-gas, coal, and nuclear facilities have been shut down or hampered by pipelines, instrumentation, and other equipment that is inadequate to the current conditions. Texas has more than enough natural gas to power itself through a storm such as this one, but it does not have sufficient capacity to get that fuel where it is needed or to use it in the current conditions. If you can’t get the gas where it’s needed, you may as well not have it at all.
Having to ship power through downed lines and blocked roads is one problem. But just as big is the problem of your clean energt not working. Power plants as an energy source is not efficient because rather than right there at the gas station via trucker, the energy comes through a long series of lines, all of which is expected to be intact. Bad storm? Downed lines, or hey maybe the sun is not sunny enough to give solar power, or maybe it's plenty windy but so cold those wind turbines have decided not to move. Your day isn't just perfect, a line may be broken twelve towns over where there was a storm, and you aren't getting peak charge.
-
According to your argument, we should never have transitioned from horse-drawn carriages to combustible engine automobiles. As at the beginning of the transition, there were very few gas stations, let alone transport capabilities for fuel.
As far as range:
How far could a Model T go on a tank of gas?
It had a limited range, lasting about 20-40 miles before requiring a refueling.
I guess all of those few elite, spoiled combustible engine automobile enthusiasts in the early days should of just packed it in and gone back to their horses. So yeah, progress should be stopped.
-
According to your argument, we should never have transitioned from horse-drawn carriages to combustible engine automobiles. As at the beginning of the transition, there were very few gas stations, let alone transport capabilities for fuel.
As far as range:
How far could a Model T go on a tank of gas?
It had a limited range, lasting about 20-40 miles before requiring a refueling.
I guess all of those few elite, spoiled combustible engine automobile enthusiasts in the early days should of just packed it in and gone back to their horses. So yeah, progress should be stopped.
You spoiled rich person with your fancy electric horse-less carriage. Just flaunting your rich ways on us peasants.
-
;)
-
The point, since you asked, is that outside your little bubble, actual people have actual problems traveling. Or to be more specific, attempt to quote this number after a job requires you to go more than 500 miles through less developed area. Because in order for this system to work requires urbanization of every area in the country. All of them have to be on a pretty tight electrical grid. This not only isn't feasible, it's undesirable. This would involve bulldozing vast stretched of land to setup the latest electric lines and transformers. And some people like forests and fields, largely tried to escape the city? Gas power requires a fraction of the infrastructure, and conservation types can have their small towns and quaint roads.
No, it wouldn't.
These towns typically already have a decent connection to the electrical grid.
At best it would require new transformers to be built to allow them to have more power.
This doesn't require urbanisation of every area or bulldozing vast stretches of land.
Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant. But people saw a few old cars and were concerned.
Yes, that's right.
No, that's wrong, as already pointed out.
Gas cars where very inefficient.
A powerplant is much more efficient.
Power plants as an energy source is not efficient because rather than right there at the gas station via trucker, the energy comes through a long series of lines, all of which is expected to be intact.
And yet again, you ignore so much.
There are multiple factors going into efficeincy.
The transport of the electrical power through the grid is just one part.
There is also the efficiency of the powerplant, and powerplants are far more efficient that car engines.
And the other part you keep on ignoring is that you still need to get the fossil fuels somewhere.
That trucker has to burn a lot of fuel to get to the gas station.
So if you want to consider those what ifs, what about when the snow blocks the road or something else takes it out so the truckers can't get there with the gas?
Or if they go on strike and refuse to transport it?
-
Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are?
So you have no idea what you are talking about and are now trying to use buzzwords to sound smart.
Got it.
Where are the superconductors in a gas powered car?
Where are the superconductors in a power plant?
In order for your argument to work, you need the powerplant itself to be less efficient, and that is what you claimed.
Not that the transmission losses result in the overall system being less efficient.
You claimed that a gas car is more efficient than a powerplant.
If you do want to focus on the distribution, you need to actually know what the transmission losses are.
And for the most part (i.e. the majority of the world) it is more fuel efficient to burn gas in a gas powerplant and transfer that electricity to an electric heater to heat a home, than it is to heat the home with gas directly.
Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source.
Only if you have purely passive components.
The wiring. The power lines.
Not the plant.
I'm talking about wasted energy.
(https://blogs.ext.vt.edu/tree-fruit-horticulture/files/2018/05/carb-model-583x1024.png)
The roots are also a source. If the roots have to go like a dandelion to get water, it's gonna take real effort for the plant to survive.
Likewise, if you have to plug in a car to juice it up, instead of burning fuel, all of this energy has to travel from the power plant to your car, spending hours upon hours to charge.
You know, if you'd bothered to research EVs, you sould discover why nobody but the most woke actually want them.
- They're not very affordable
- They sometimes literally burst into flames
- They open people up to easy robbery as they either have to sit in place for hours at a station, make it back home (or to a hotel which has enough energy to plug all those cars and not refuse to risk its bottom line (right...)), or be stranded at the side of the road. Btw, some people need to drive across the country on business. But the range of an EV is 200 miles, after which you wait hours for a recharge.
- It turns out that during cold months, they are spending all of their energy trying to conserve battery, and the car can't keep you warm
- Oh yeah, and you're kidding yourself by not being able to see the source of power.
Wasted energy, you mean all that effort you put into your pointless and meaningless posts?
-
According to your argument, we should never have transitioned from horse-drawn carriages to combustible engine automobiles. As at the beginning of the transition, there were very few gas stations, let alone transport capabilities for fuel.
As far as range:
How far could a Model T go on a tank of gas?
It had a limited range, lasting about 20-40 miles before requiring a refueling.
I guess all of those few elite, spoiled combustible engine automobile enthusiasts in the early days should of just packed it in and gone back to their horses. So yeah, progress should be stopped.
You spoiled rich person with your fancy electric horse-less carriage. Just flaunting your rich ways on us peasants.
Pretty much, yeah.
When I was working regularly (now I'm an unemployed crank), I made about $5000 a year. Assuming no major incidents (like the aforementioned getting fired), it would take 8 whole years for me to afford a car. The snobby idea that all of us can naturally set aside our own needs for 8 whole years is a bit too much "let them eat cake." Woefully out of touch with what it means to be working class. Now I'm lucky to have middle class parents, but it isn't exactly my money. I cannot just demand they get me a new car, damn the expenses because "we need to save the planet."
And it gets worse when you understand that while electric aren't guzzling gas, they are energy guzzling. More than an hour charge time is simply too much. So is the size of this batter. So is the range of these vehicles.
What I have discovered of liberals who push virtue is that they like to propose two standards. One for those willing and able to pay the fines (themselves) and another for the little people. Al Gore has a heated pool. He has more energy expenses than our entire town. He slaps a few solar cells (which reduce energy use by maybe 5%?) on the problem and pretends he is green.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
-
According to your argument, we should never have transitioned from horse-drawn carriages to combustible engine automobiles. As at the beginning of the transition, there were very few gas stations, let alone transport capabilities for fuel.
As far as range:
How far could a Model T go on a tank of gas?
It had a limited range, lasting about 20-40 miles before requiring a refueling.
I guess all of those few elite, spoiled combustible engine automobile enthusiasts in the early days should of just packed it in and gone back to their horses. So yeah, progress should be stopped.
You spoiled rich person with your fancy electric horse-less carriage. Just flaunting your rich ways on us peasants.
Pretty much, yeah.
When I was working regularly (now I'm an unemployed crank), I made about $5000 a year. Assuming no major incidents (like the aforementioned getting fired), it would take 8 whole years for me to afford a car.
Seems like it's your own personal problem that you can't afford a car...of any type.
The snobby idea that all of us can naturally set aside our own needs for 8 whole years is a bit too much "let them eat cake." Woefully out of touch with what it means to be working class. Now I'm lucky to have middle class parents, but it isn't exactly my money. I cannot just demand they get me a new car, damn the expenses because "we need to save the planet."
You can't afford any car, whether it's got a combustible engine or not. Again, that's a personal problem, not a societal one.
The Model T initially cost about $825 (around $24,000 today)
You would have had to stuck with your horse and buggy back then, if you could even afford that.
And it gets worse when you understand that while electric aren't guzzling gas, they are energy guzzling.
Evidence?
More than an hour charge time is simply too much.
Fast charge infrastructure is ramping up. Just like how there were no gas stations back when the automobile was ramping up.
So is the size of this battery.
What does that have to do with anything? I guess we should never have developed computers back in the 50's because they were just too damn big...
(https://i.imgur.com/25NyhZH.png)
It could do a whopping 3 additions or subtractions in a second!
So is the range of these vehicles.
EV range: 400-ish miles
Model T range: 20-40 miles
Why are you so against progress?
-
So lackles and bulmba are both under the impression that ALL drivers "suffer" winter conditios?
There are NO non freeze climates where people would drive?
Is that the claim?
Is he heating pools with the burning of aborted feti?
Solar heaters aee a thing too.
Who knows his method.
D9 you know?
-
According to your argument, we should never have transitioned from horse-drawn carriages to combustible engine automobiles. As at the beginning of the transition, there were very few gas stations, let alone transport capabilities for fuel.
As far as range:
How far could a Model T go on a tank of gas?
It had a limited range, lasting about 20-40 miles before requiring a refueling.
I guess all of those few elite, spoiled combustible engine automobile enthusiasts in the early days should of just packed it in and gone back to their horses. So yeah, progress should be stopped.
You spoiled rich person with your fancy electric horse-less carriage. Just flaunting your rich ways on us peasants.
Pretty much, yeah.
When I was working regularly (now I'm an unemployed crank), I made about $5000 a year. Assuming no major incidents (like the aforementioned getting fired), it would take 8 whole years for me to afford a car. The snobby idea that all of us can naturally set aside our own needs for 8 whole years is a bit too much "let them eat cake." Woefully out of touch with what it means to be working class. Now I'm lucky to have middle class parents, but it isn't exactly my money. I cannot just demand they get me a new car, damn the expenses because "we need to save the planet."
And it gets worse when you understand that while electric aren't guzzling gas, they are energy guzzling. More than an hour charge time is simply too much. So is the size of this batter. So is the range of these vehicles.
What I have discovered of liberals who push virtue is that they like to propose two standards. One for those willing and able to pay the fines (themselves) and another for the little people. Al Gore has a heated pool. He has more energy expenses than our entire town. He slaps a few solar cells (which reduce energy use by maybe 5%?) on the problem and pretends he is green.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
The crap you say, if you are truly like this in real life would be the reason for your job problems. But I assume this is just yet another lie. It doesn't matter much anyway, your lack of social skills, mental deficiencies, inability to be truthful, laziness, etc which lead to your possibly sad sack of shit life is unimportant to me anyway.
-
The wiring. The power lines.
Not the plant.
You were talking about the powerplant, not the transmission losses or the system.
And like so many things, you want to just focus on a single effect and ignore all others.
Truly pathetic.
If you want to actually consider which wastes more energy you need to consider both generation and transmission losses, for both systems, and what the source of electric power is.
No what's pathetic is you trying to justify this.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/ElectricMadness.pdf
-
No what's pathetic is you trying to justify this.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/ElectricMadness.pdf
Why would I need to justify your anti-electricity hate?
That would be you.
And we can see the madness there, pulling numbers from thin air with no justification at all.
Acting like the power needs to come from coal, ignoring renewable sources.
It acts like an electric car is just like a petrol car with an additional battery, ignoring the difference in weight between an electric vs petrol drive chain.
It acts like all electric cars will be charged at "petrol stations", entirely ignoring those that would do fine just charging them at home/work without needing to go to a charging station at all.
It ignores heat pumps, which are much more efficient at heating homes than burning gas, and also ignores the fact that burning gas to heat your home is not 100% efficient due to needing to expel the hot exhaust gas to avoid suffocating people.
And yet again, it ignores the losses associated with transporting the petrol to a petrol station and transporting the car to the petrol station, and pumping all that fuel and so on.
-
Actually, we typically buy cars around the $5000 to $8000 mark, though one of my cars that I drove for years was practically free (family friend). These tend to be compacts or used, though we get a fair amount of vans too. We just don't by luxury or alot of features, and it tend to be at least two years old. Then Biden fucked with the supply, and there were no new or preowned, just really used and even they were $10k. We had to look around for nearly three months before we found a Corolla.
Now you ask us all to spend nearly four times that because you think you're saving the planet. But you're making things worse, and yes, you are a snob.
And study history. When we find out about cars, we learn two things. First, Model T wasn't the first car. It was the first mass produced and affordable car. Ford's theory was that his own factory workers ought to be able to buy their own cars. And he managed it, by producing enough to make them cheap. But there were cars before him. They were expensive and unreliable. Ford got his start by repaieing these cars. Ultimately, one of them, he took apart, reverse engineered better, and started building better cars.
Second, you ought to know that electric cars are not a new thing. But guess what? They lost even back then to gas. It's only when electric is more practical (it still isn't) than gas and also more affordable (it definitely isn't) that people buy them. Unless compelled at gunpoint or pressyred by unrealistic gas prices. But they can't afford it even when pressured (hint: if you want people to buy something you make it and the energy it runs on cheaper, you don't start by making everything more expensive).
This isn't analogous to buying a Model T. This is buying a per-Ford car, which was not only expensive but unreliable. Without Ford, we would have given up on automobiles. Since electricars literally explode (read the ElectricMadness pdf), yeah they aren't bugged out yet.
EV range: 400-ish miles
Model T range: 20-40 miles
Why are you so against progress?
:snorts: "Progress." Btw, our Corolla does 400 miles. It also doesn't take 10 hours to refuel.
I'm not against progress. I'm against "progress." Weaker inventions phasing out better ones is not progress. I'm also against progress that we don't have any choice in. Car buying ought to be about customization. You want touchless ignition? You want automatic transmission? You want hand-crank windows? Fine, our computer puts together these specs and we build it in half an hour. We'll deliver that to you, exactly as specifified within a week or two. This is progress. Further peogress allows it to be made even while you are signing the paperwork.
No, cars aren't going in this direction. In fact, because of computers in cars, it's actually virtually impossible to change parts to what you like. Want touchless ignition? Don't want it? Automatic? Manual? The computer has a rigid setup and will not allow customization. We found this out when we went to the dealership and asked them just to switch my dad's car to an automatic. Turns out the process would likely require more expense than simply buying a new car. These damned chips mean not only the microchip crisis which slowed down the car industry, but also but also make it impossible to swap out parts without potentially bricking the machine.
I put together a computer once (everything was good except we gor a bad OS, and the machine locked us out). Lemme tell you, if they built computers where you can't change parts, the actual users (not the email/facebook types) would be appalled. I'm not even that good, and even I have swapped a memory card or put in a new drive.
Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire. Not only that, it becomes unstartable (unless you use a hidden nub that you probably had to read the manual to find out about) should the batteries on the fob ever fair, either at the car end or the fob end. Making it more likely that a thief can start your cae than you is a bad idea. I was really pleased when the Coeolla came with the option of NOT getting it.
What if I told you that many car companies are phasing out all standard ignition? What happened to choice of features? How is that progress? It is moving away from the vision of customizing cars and towards the Model T which is only available in black. That's REGRESS not progress. We should be moving towards more customization, with the standard version sold in stores, but the ability to pick color, ignition, transmission, windows, doors, and so on like ordering at Sheetz (those kiosks are awesome).
Instead we're moving in the direction of the state telling you which cars to buy. That's a communist idea. And the last time communism was done in Cuba, people had to keep their cars running for years because car companies went belly up.
What you are trying to justify is state takeover of auto commerce. You have to buy the cars the government wants because they've called all others obsolete. Demanding that cars have certain features violates customer choices. If don't want an electric car, you shouldn't have to buy one. Forcing people to buy one is not progress. It's fascism. I don't mind if you don't want a gas car. You have the right to be an elitist prick. You don't have the right to force me to choose like you, though.
-
Second, you ought to know that electric cars are not a new thing. But guess what? They lost even back then to gas. It's only when electric is more practical (it still isn't) than gas and also more affordable (it definitely isn't) that people buy them.
And the technology has improved dramatically.
This isn't analogous to buying a Model T. This is buying a per-Ford car
No, it is quite comparable to a model T. Especially early in their production.
Adjusting for inflation that works out at roughly $25k.
Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.
No, it can't.
The RFID is encrypted. In some regards, it is more secure than a key. Especially if they have a lockout period.
What happened to choice of features?
Choice of features cost more money. Do you want cheap cars or choice of features?
Instead we're moving in the direction of the state telling you which cars to buy. That's a communist idea.
No it isn't.
Communism is a system of wealth distribution.
It isn't a system of leadership. Communism doesn't mean the government can tell you what to buy.
Demanding that cars have certain features violates customer choices.
I suppose you want cars without seatbelts and headlights as well, which runs on leaded fuel?
-
Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.
Oh please, give us your take on how RFID works. One of my specialties btw. Go on, tell us how to "dummy" it. This isn't the movies.
Go on, tell us.
-
Holy crap
What a rant
Ford model T in any colour as long as its black
Why do you think he did that?
Becuase customization = time and time = money.
But somehow your economic genius wants fully customized cars while at the same time complaining about costs.
Amaaaazing.
2ndly
Your gas was cheap because you pay taxes which subsidize big oil.
You are paying them to control you.
And now theyre rapung your wallet and laughing in your face while you defend them.
Stockholm much?
-
Ok, so I have been reluctant to weigh in on the EV side of this so far. But, if you want to look at environmental and financial affects alone then here is a quick rundown.
Yes, production of EV vehicles require more energy and in turn release more emissions into the environment than conventional gas vehicles. Also add in the lithium battery vs the oil and other non-fuel related items needed for operation of gas powered that are not used in EV. So with that being said, it all comes down to distance traveled.
For the first 25000 miles, the gas powered version wins out on emissions. Until this point the difference in emissions produced to operate an EV was operating at a loss, due to the higher production emissions.
At 30000 to 35000 the operation of the EV starts balancing out for the lithium vs consumables only used in gas powered cars. It's hard to gage the impact of mining the lithium vs drilling of oils and byproducts of both, but that extra emissions savings over 5 to 10k miles pretty much offset it. Granted the lithium from failed and end of life batteries need to be properly dealt with to be able to acomplish this.
This is just using standard energy production, not anything special.
Now, the financial costs.
Using the same metric of distance traveled.
Using a 1.5 increase in current gas and energy prices also.
For the purchase of an EV vs a similar Gas powered car you will need to drive for 20000 miles to offset roughly 5000 dollars in price. So with using this, very crude, method we could assume that, roughly, for every 5000 you spend on an EV over what you would have on a gas powered version you need to drive 20000 miles.
So are EV vehicles worth it? Yes and No. It depends on your usage.
The number of miles needed to justify both environmental and financial costs decreases dramatically for EV in metropolitan areas. Sitting in traffic burns gas much faster that it burns electricity. Short trips and air of stop and go vehicle movement burns more gas than electricity. So if you drive in a city, you need less city miles to overtake the gas powered cars in terms of costs.
-
Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.
Oh please, give us your take on how RFID works. One of my specialties btw. Go on, tell us how to "dummy" it. This isn't the movies.
Go on, tell us.
I don't mean to hand them a lifeline here, but building a device that listens for keyfobs trying to interact with a vehicle, records the signal, and then can repeat it at will is something that's already been widely published with step-by-step guides for anyone with even a very limited technical skillset. So door locks and remote starters are great vectors for attack. I have a feeling that's a separate thing than the RFID that tells the car your have the actual key fob inside the vehicle before you are able to start or drive it though, for cars that have that sort of system in place, although it's not something I've looked into so you undoubtedly would know better than I.
But, I mean, for unlocking a vehicle of a certain age that might also have a remote starter installed which could also be vulnerable, you can use a Raspberry Pi (https://themodernham.com/unlock-cars-with-a-raspberry-pi-and-sdr-replay-attack/) with a battery and just a few add-ons to have some fun. I suspect b's idea comes from some sort of awareness of this kind of attack though.
-
Then Biden fucked with the supply,
You realize that supply issues due to a little thing called the pandemic was a global thing, not just a US thing, right?
You probably think that the Evergreen stuffing up the Suez was a Biden thing too.
And study history. When we find out about cars, we learn two things. First, Model T wasn't the first car. It was the first mass produced and affordable car. Ford's theory was that his own factory workers ought to be able to buy their own cars. And he managed it, by producing enough to make them cheap. But there were cars before him. They were expensive and unreliable. Ford got his start by repaieing these cars. Ultimately, one of them, he took apart, reverse engineered better, and started building better cars.
You just outlined exactly how progress works. Technologies emerge but are wildly expensive. People come along, re-engineer, tweak things, even new innovations like battery tech, etc., processes get streamlined, ubiquity becomes the norm and prices are optimized and driven down.
You have to go through all of this to get to reasonable accessibility and cost points. Just like Henry Ford did.
As JB pointed out, in the beginning, a new Model T was $25k. Using your argument, the Model T was snobbish and only for the elites and should have been killed.
unrealistic gas prices.
What's an unrealistic gas price. Unrealistic based upon what?
Since electricars literally explode (read the ElectricMadness pdf), yeah they aren't bugged out yet.
I live amid a sea of EVs. Never seen one explode.
We found this out when we went to the dealership and asked them just to switch my dad's car to an automatic. Turns out the process would likely require more expense than simply buying a new car.
Which is what anyone would have told you 25 years ago. Switching a manual to auto is like major surgery. Think liver transplant.
What if I told you that many car companies are phasing out all standard ignition? What happened to choice of features?
God damnit, why can I only get this 71' Mustang with a v-6?? I want a v-8! What happened to choice of features?!? How is that progress?"
What you are trying to justify is state takeover of auto commerce. You have to buy the cars the government wants because they've called all others obsolete.
I guess you're against any and all emission standards that have been implemented by the gov't over the last 50 years.
Demanding that cars have certain features violates customer choices.
Like seatbelts and airbags and crumple zones?
If don't want an electric car, you shouldn't have to buy one. Forcing people to buy one is not progress. It's fascism. I don't mind if you don't want a gas car. You have the right to be an elitist prick. You don't have the right to force me to choose like you, though.
When did owning a car become a human right? You're probably against the government requiring a license to drive a car too.
-
Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.
Oh please, give us your take on how RFID works. One of my specialties btw. Go on, tell us how to "dummy" it. This isn't the movies.
Go on, tell us.
I don't mean to hand them a lifeline here, but building a device that listens for keyfobs trying to interact with a vehicle, records the signal, and then can repeat it at will is something that's already been widely published with step-by-step guides for anyone with even a very limited technical skillset. So door locks and remote starters are great vectors for attack. I have a feeling that's a separate thing than the RFID that tells the car your have the actual key fob inside the vehicle before you are able to start or drive it though, for cars that have that sort of system in place, although it's not something I've looked into so you undoubtedly would know better than I.
But, I mean, for unlocking a vehicle of a certain age that might also have a remote starter installed which could also be vulnerable, you can use a Raspberry Pi (https://themodernham.com/unlock-cars-with-a-raspberry-pi-and-sdr-replay-attack/) with a battery and just a few add-ons to have some fun. I suspect b's idea comes from some sort of awareness of this kind of attack though.
RFID isn't about a frequency. You are talking about old school key fobs that send a specific radio frequency signal when you hit a button. Thats not RFID. That's not what was said, or what was being talked about. I would expect them to conflate these things on purpose, you I understand as being ignorant of the technology.
-
Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.
Oh please, give us your take on how RFID works. One of my specialties btw. Go on, tell us how to "dummy" it. This isn't the movies.
Go on, tell us.
I don't mean to hand them a lifeline here, but building a device that listens for keyfobs trying to interact with a vehicle, records the signal, and then can repeat it at will is something that's already been widely published with step-by-step guides for anyone with even a very limited technical skillset. So door locks and remote starters are great vectors for attack. I have a feeling that's a separate thing than the RFID that tells the car your have the actual key fob inside the vehicle before you are able to start or drive it though, for cars that have that sort of system in place, although it's not something I've looked into so you undoubtedly would know better than I.
But, I mean, for unlocking a vehicle of a certain age that might also have a remote starter installed which could also be vulnerable, you can use a Raspberry Pi (https://themodernham.com/unlock-cars-with-a-raspberry-pi-and-sdr-replay-attack/) with a battery and just a few add-ons to have some fun. I suspect b's idea comes from some sort of awareness of this kind of attack though.
RFID isn't about a frequency. You are talking about old school key fobs that send a specific radio frequency signal when you hit a button. Thats not RFID. That's not what was said, or what was being talked about. I would expect them to conflate these things on purpose, you I understand as being ignorant of the technology.
Maybe I missed a post. The one you quoted doesn't say RFID. It talks about using a device to defeat a keyless entry and keyless ignition, and it phrases things poorly (as expected, considering the source...), but the heart of it is what I just said - defeating keyless entry/starting.
-
Nevermind. I see where they are saying the car wouldn't even be able to start if the key battery died. I guess that kind of indicates they think there couldn't be a passive RFID thing going on.
Edit: clarification. Also, disclaimer, I'm not in any way an RFID nerd (I know you know that already Mikey T, but just to make sure no one makes the mistake of thinking I'm trying to speak from a place of strong foundational knowledge... I've just built the Pi keyfob repeater before), I know precious little about the tech beyond very broad strokes.
-
Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.
Oh please, give us your take on how RFID works. One of my specialties btw. Go on, tell us how to "dummy" it. This isn't the movies.
Go on, tell us.
One of your specialties? Huh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID_skimming
-
It depends on how complex it is.
The early RF stuff like a garage door opener was just sending a relatively short code, one way.
This allows it to easily be circumvented by just quickly sweeping all the codes.
More advanced versions used longer codes, requiring it to be read from the device to then be replayed.
More more advanced versions use one time codes, so a replay attack wont work.
And others use 2 way communication where the device to be unlocked sends an encrypted message which is read and processed by the RFID device which sends an encrypted response.
This is quite different to the RFID skimming used for credit cards, as you aren't circumventing the RFID technology to use contactless payment.
Instead you are trying to get the details from the card, to determine enough information to make a purchase online from dodgy stores which require too little information for the purchase.
-
General statements get general answers.
RFID is RFID, regardless of what it's being utilized with.
RFID skimming is most commonly referenced to credit/debit card skimming; however, RFID skimming is simply the malicious reading and copying of the information contained within the RFID tag remotely.
RFID can be read using over the counter equipment.
While certain RFID setups can utilize additional countermeasures to make it harder to read and duplicate as you stated, that's not always the case, nor are those countermeasures impervious. It just makes reading and duplication more difficult.
-
I dislike lumping together all RFID and acting like it is the same.
That would be like saying all keys are keys, treating a key which literally just turns a lock the same as one with security pins.
Yes, all can be bypassed, that applies for literally everything. But some are trivial, and some are incredibly complex and unlikely to be defeated with current devices in any reasonable period of time. i.e. it would be easier to hack the ECU.
-
Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.
Oh please, give us your take on how RFID works. One of my specialties btw. Go on, tell us how to "dummy" it. This isn't the movies.
Go on, tell us.
I don't mean to hand them a lifeline here, but building a device that listens for keyfobs trying to interact with a vehicle, records the signal, and then can repeat it at will is something that's already been widely published with step-by-step guides for anyone with even a very limited technical skillset. So door locks and remote starters are great vectors for attack. I have a feeling that's a separate thing than the RFID that tells the car your have the actual key fob inside the vehicle before you are able to start or drive it though, for cars that have that sort of system in place, although it's not something I've looked into so you undoubtedly would know better than I.
But, I mean, for unlocking a vehicle of a certain age that might also have a remote starter installed which could also be vulnerable, you can use a Raspberry Pi (https://themodernham.com/unlock-cars-with-a-raspberry-pi-and-sdr-replay-attack/) with a battery and just a few add-ons to have some fun. I suspect b's idea comes from some sort of awareness of this kind of attack though.
RFID isn't about a frequency. You are talking about old school key fobs that send a specific radio frequency signal when you hit a button. Thats not RFID. That's not what was said, or what was being talked about. I would expect them to conflate these things on purpose, you I understand as being ignorant of the technology.
Maybe I missed a post. The one you quoted doesn't say RFID. It talks about using a device to defeat a keyless entry and keyless ignition, and it phrases things poorly (as expected, considering the source...), but the heart of it is what I just said - defeating keyless entry/starting.
He likes to do stupid shit in his replies so it looks like I cut out what he responded to. My mistake there. He was talking about RFID touchless ignition. Keyless starting is primarily done by mid range RFID, or around 5 ghz activation range. The ID on the key transmits nothing really unless polled correctly with the correct message bits enabled, with code, timing of bit spacing, and " we will call it individual bit parity. This reports the fobs ID number. This must be previously paired with the system or programmed in to act as a digital key. Also incorrect reports, such as you happening to get to the car with the incorrect Fob and initiate the hard challenge ( attempting to unlock the door or start the vehicle) can and does add that incorrect Fob to the temporary blacklist for faster denials. It can also temporarily in rare cases temporarily disable the Active RFID device (car) if the blacklist gets filled up faster than it can timeout the older entries. Aka if you try to brute force it with a sequencer of ID numbers it will shut off the ability to pole for IDs and lock down the device for a set number of cycles, which is either random or closely guarded.
There is a presence sweep done also for the key that already opened the device to assist in not leaving the car running and leaving with your fob. And another hard pole for when you lock your doors with the ignition off after opening and closing the door and the strength of the Fob signal is evaluated to make sure you are not locking your fob in the car.
But it isn't done by rotating frequencies, it is an active data flow between the two devices. The battery in your fob is for remote activation of the onboard RFID device only and all security mentioned above is done.
This is a very very simplified and slightly generalized explanation, there are tons more involved like AB rising and falling detection in randomization. Also your RFID tag can report multiple different ID numbers depending on the polling signal's challenge code, challnge power level, challenge frequency(both band and specific frequency) and encryption type.
-
Nevermind. I see where they are saying the car wouldn't even be able to start if the key battery died. I guess that kind of indicates they think there couldn't be a passive RFID thing going on.
Edit: clarification. Also, disclaimer, I'm not in any way an RFID nerd (I know you know that already Mikey T, but just to make sure no one makes the mistake of thinking I'm trying to speak from a place of strong foundational knowledge... I've just built the Pi keyfob repeater before), I know precious little about the tech beyond very broad strokes.
No worries brother,
I have had way too much to drink today or I would have written pages. I live in that world and have designed a few RFID systems. Sone that had the tag going into ovens and having to deal with the degradation that extra energy does to passive tags. I had to study too much during troubleshooting that shit show of a project. I fucked up on the front end but corrected it with new ceramic embedded tags and increased polling rates with some homebrew error correction for the extra garbage numbers that may be transmitted.
-
What you are trying to justify is state takeover of auto commerce. You have to buy the cars the government wants because they've called all others obsolete.
This is amazing
So close to understanding yet so far away.
How would you bulmba feel if the state took your tax dollars to subsidized a comodity utility that 99% people require to live.
Then the producer could reap profits while holding said monopoly, without any of the environmental clean required, pushing clean costs back on you the tax payer?
Then using their enormous profits to buy politicians who will go to war with your life, to destablize competing producers.
And use those profits to squash new competing prodcuts?
How would you feel about that?
Sounds like you dont like it.
So we re in agreement
Planned obscelence of electronic equipment and monopoly of resources are bad.
Down with monopolies!
-
I dislike lumping together all RFID and acting like it is the same.
That would be like saying all keys are keys, treating a key which literally just turns a lock the same as one with security pins.
Yes, all can be bypassed, that applies for literally everything. But some are trivial, and some are incredibly complex and unlikely to be defeated with current devices in any reasonable period of time. i.e. it would be easier to hack the ECU.
Using locks is probably not the best analogy. See TheLockPickingLawyer on youtube.
But I'll give you your point and agree that the average joe isn't going to be able to just pick up the equipment and defeat security protocols for RFID from the start. Experience will matter, but the tools to do so are out there and not difficult to attain and use. Just like picking a lock, while it certainly can be done and the tools are readily available, not everyone will be able to do it with ease from the start.
-
Using locks is probably not the best analogy. See TheLockPickingLawyer on youtube.
But I'll give you your point and agree that the average joe isn't going to be able to just pick up the equipment and defeat security protocols for RFID from the start. Experience will matter, but the tools to do so are out there and not difficult to attain and use. Just like picking a lock, while it certainly can be done and the tools are readily available, not everyone will be able to do it with ease from the start.
I think the lockpickinglawyer can make it a great example. Some locks you can defeat with almost anything. Including just directly turning the locking lug with no picking needed at all. Others are much harder to defeat.
But with RFID, I'm not sure if we do have the tools available to defeat them all, at least not in any reasonable time period.
And that includes keyless ignition, which should be a challenge-response setup.
(and likewise, with some locks, there are some with traps that mean unless you know what to expect, you will brick the lock if you try picking it and fail, and that would prevent even brute force.)
-
I have no idea what tech these guys used and it's from 2019 so a little old...
-
I have no idea what tech these guys used and it's from 2019 so a little old...
They appear to have used a repeater, with the FOB close enough to the wall, and that is why the guy went up to the house.
Basically they pick up the signal from the car, repeat it with more power to get through the wall and into the house to communicate with the FOB, pick up the signal back from the fob and then send it to the car to trick the car into thinking the key is nearby/inside.
This is made more problematic by the combination of keyless "ignition" and proximity entry.
By a simple relay attack they are able to unlock the car, and then get in and start it.
If it required pushing a button on the fob to unlock the car, it wouldn't have gone down as smoothly.
It could also be prevented by storing the FOB in a RF protective pouch.
And depending on the cars software, once the FOB is out of range (and not being repeated) it will either stop, or it just wont start after it stops.
-
I have no idea what tech these guys used and it's from 2019 so a little old...
They appear to have used a repeater, with the FOB close enough to the wall, and that is why the guy went up to the house.
Basically they pick up the signal from the car, repeat it with more power to get through the wall and into the house to communicate with the FOB, pick up the signal back from the fob and then send it to the car to trick the car into thinking the key is nearby/inside.
This is made more problematic by the combination of keyless "ignition" and proximity entry.
By a simple relay attack they are able to unlock the car, and then get in and start it.
If it required pushing a button on the fob to unlock the car, it wouldn't have gone down as smoothly.
It could also be prevented by storing the FOB in a RF protective pouch.
And depending on the cars software, once the FOB is out of range (and not being repeated) it will either stop, or it just wont start after it stops.
So they used the backpack thing to challenge the fob in the house to make its return signal seem like it was next to the car to unlock and then enable the push button. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. I guess they had to know enough about the style of fob for that specific car type to ensure they could properly capture the ID of the fob and be able to copy it so they car didn't shut start alarming after it got far enough away from the fob to defeat the constant presence portion. Granted that's mainly an annoying beep in the car and inability to put it back in gear if they stopped somewhere.
Interesting. Pretty sofististicated rig. It could be why newer cars have a bit more randomness in their frequency and individual bit timings now. But hey, no matter how hard you make the lock, as long as there is enough incentive, someone will do their best to defeat it. I would assume the level of sofistication and research needed would soon out cost the cars stripped down value.
My wife's car will let you unlock k it by pressing a button on the door handle if the fob is close enough, this one must be the same.
They had to know a good but about the victim. Where in the house the key would have been, some specific info about the car, I guess you may be able to get it with the right contacts and the VIN. Was this a repo by chance?
-
So they used the backpack thing to challenge the fob in the house to make its return signal seem like it was next to the car to unlock and then enable the push button. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. I guess they had to know enough about the style of fob for that specific car type to ensure they could properly capture the ID of the fob and be able to copy it so they car didn't shut start alarming after it got far enough away from the fob to defeat the constant presence portion. Granted that's mainly an annoying beep in the car and inability to put it back in gear if they stopped somewhere.
Interesting. Pretty sofististicated rig. It could be why newer cars have a bit more randomness in their frequency and individual bit timings now. But hey, no matter how hard you make the lock, as long as there is enough incentive, someone will do their best to defeat it. I would assume the level of sofistication and research needed would soon out cost the cars stripped down value.
My wife's car will let you unlock k it by pressing a button on the door handle if the fob is close enough, this one must be the same.
They had to know a good but about the victim. Where in the house the key would have been, some specific info about the car, I guess you may be able to get it with the right contacts and the VIN. Was this a repo by chance?
I think the warning is just for those inside the vehicle.
It appears it is more to prevent people accidentally driving off without their fob and not being able to start it later rather than preventing theft.
And some early models didn't even have a warning.
So I doubt they copied the ID.
The bigger issue is the GPS tracking of the car.
I assume if it was done properly it would be driven directly to a garage where it would be stripped for parts.
Also, the cost needs to be higher than the car is the time required.
If you spend $300k researching how to steal the car, but can get $30k for each car stolen, you just need to steal 10 cars to break even (ignoring time).
And if you distribute the information so others get it cheaply, it can be profitable for them immediately.
Similarly, if the hardware required to steal it is expensive, as long as it isn't single use it can be profitable.
-
So they used the backpack thing to challenge the fob in the house to make its return signal seem like it was next to the car to unlock and then enable the push button. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. I guess they had to know enough about the style of fob for that specific car type to ensure they could properly capture the ID of the fob and be able to copy it so they car didn't shut start alarming after it got far enough away from the fob to defeat the constant presence portion. Granted that's mainly an annoying beep in the car and inability to put it back in gear if they stopped somewhere.
Interesting. Pretty sofististicated rig. It could be why newer cars have a bit more randomness in their frequency and individual bit timings now. But hey, no matter how hard you make the lock, as long as there is enough incentive, someone will do their best to defeat it. I would assume the level of sofistication and research needed would soon out cost the cars stripped down value.
My wife's car will let you unlock k it by pressing a button on the door handle if the fob is close enough, this one must be the same.
They had to know a good but about the victim. Where in the house the key would have been, some specific info about the car, I guess you may be able to get it with the right contacts and the VIN. Was this a repo by chance?
I think the warning is just for those inside the vehicle.
It appears it is more to prevent people accidentally driving off without their fob and not being able to start it later rather than preventing theft.
And some early models didn't even have a warning.
So I doubt they copied the ID.
The bigger issue is the GPS tracking of the car.
I assume if it was done properly it would be driven directly to a garage where it would be stripped for parts.
Also, the cost needs to be higher than the car is the time required.
If you spend $300k researching how to steal the car, but can get $30k for each car stolen, you just need to steal 10 cars to break even (ignoring time).
And if you distribute the information so others get it cheaply, it can be profitable for them immediately.
Similarly, if the hardware required to steal it is expensive, as long as it isn't single use it can be profitable.
That's fair. Still dependant on knowledge of the victim and their habits. Hence, don't hang your cars keys on the wall by your front door. Mine usually stay either on me or in my office which is on the opposite side of the house from my vehicle. This technique probably wouldn't work for my vehicle, but I'm not rocking a 90 k tesla either, so yeah, my POS expedition wouldn't be worth the trouble anyway.
-
Wait, how did we get here? I just noticed this thread was about the supposed Antarctic ice wall.
-
Wait, how did we get here? I just noticed this thread was about the supposed Antarctic ice wall.
That got boring because it's such an inane archaic topic - Pretty much the dumbest FE assertion ever. So we took the obvious next logical leap and started talking about RFID cracking to steal Teslas. Jesus Mikey, try and keep up. ;)
-
Wait, how did we get here? I just noticed this thread was about the supposed Antarctic ice wall.
That got boring because it's such an inane archaic topic - Pretty much the dumbest FE assertion ever. So we took the obvious next logical leap and started talking about RFID cracking to steal Teslas. Jesus Mikey, try and keep up. ;)
Fair, you win this round Stash. Lmao.
-
General statements get general answers.
RFID is RFID, regardless of what it's being utilized with.
RFID skimming is most commonly referenced to credit/debit card skimming; however, RFID skimming is simply the malicious reading and copying of the information contained within the RFID tag remotely.
RFID can be read using over the counter equipment.
While certain RFID setups can utilize additional countermeasures to make it harder to read and duplicate as you stated, that's not always the case, nor are those countermeasures impervious. It just makes reading and duplication more difficult.
Ugh, I just saw this awful commercial where this guy refuses to take cash, instead getting pure digital money because he's too much of a fucker to trust legal tender. You do know that in your phobia about germs on paper money (this cashless craze took off during COVID), you've opened yourself up to the same sorta signal hacking? Cash can't be hacked. You have to actually know your mugger, most times.
Most awkward commercial ever. Dude, take the freaking cash.
That got boring because it's such an inane archaic topic - Pretty much the dumbest FE assertion ever. So we took the obvious next logical leap and started talking about RFID cracking to steal Teslas. Jesus Mikey, try and keep up.
I got bored with it too. But why would you want to steal a Tesla? Electric cars freaking blow up on you.
Yes, gas cars can catch fire, but it seems not to be a problem if you take normal care of it, versus an inherent issue.
-
General statements get general answers.
RFID is RFID, regardless of what it's being utilized with.
RFID skimming is most commonly referenced to credit/debit card skimming; however, RFID skimming is simply the malicious reading and copying of the information contained within the RFID tag remotely.
RFID can be read using over the counter equipment.
While certain RFID setups can utilize additional countermeasures to make it harder to read and duplicate as you stated, that's not always the case, nor are those countermeasures impervious. It just makes reading and duplication more difficult.
Ugh, I just saw this awful commercial where this guy refuses to take cash, instead getting pure digital money because he's too much of a fucker to trust legal tender. You do know that in your phobia about germs on paper money (this cashless craze took off during COVID), you've opened yourself up to the same sorta signal hacking? Cash can't be hacked. You have to actually know your mugger, most times.
Most awkward commercial ever. Dude, take the freaking cash.
That got boring because it's such an inane archaic topic - Pretty much the dumbest FE assertion ever. So we took the obvious next logical leap and started talking about RFID cracking to steal Teslas. Jesus Mikey, try and keep up.
I got bored with it too. But why would you want to steal a Tesla? Electric cars freaking blow up on you.
Yes, gas cars can catch fire, but it seems not to be a problem if you take normal care of it, versus an inherent issue.
Are you serious?
-
I'm serious as a car fire.
-
Wow, a car caught fire in China! Oh the humanity!!!!
-
I'm serious as a car fire.
Gasoline cars catch a light all the time. It just does not make the news, because its so frequent.
But your going to have to start making peace with electric cars sooner or later, as they are dominating the new car market at a very rapid pace.
Probably very few new gasoline cars after 2030 - 2035.
-
Concerning the chance of EV's catching fire.
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-electric-vehicles-involved-in-fewest-car-fires/
Hybrid-powered cars were involved in about 3,475 fires per every 100,000 sold.
Gasoline-powered cars, about 1,530 per 100,000 sold
Electric vehicles (EVs) saw just 25 fires per 100,000 sold.
So an electric car is about 61 times less likely to catch fire than a gasoline car.
Who ever tells you that electric cars are dangerous because the catch fire has an agenda
-
Kindle AND a computer?
Now whos an elitist?
Side note
Is your kindle plugged in all the time or do you orefer it to be battery powered?
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm goung to draw what is happening in this rocket thing, so I gotta switch from Kindle to my computer.
-
Family forced to flee their home after a Kindle burst into flames and set their home on fire while it was charging overnight (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637886/Family-forced-flee-home-Kindle-burst-flames-set-home-fire-charging-overnight.html)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/12/19/352DE13E00000578-3637886-image-a-98_1465756695205.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/12/19/352DE15E00000578-3637886-image-a-97_1465756433368.jpg)
Kindles are evil. Ban them!!!
-
Family forced to flee their home after a Kindle burst into flames and set their home on fire while it was charging overnight (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637886/Family-forced-flee-home-Kindle-burst-flames-set-home-fire-charging-overnight.html)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/12/19/352DE13E00000578-3637886-image-a-98_1465756695205.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/12/19/352DE15E00000578-3637886-image-a-97_1465756433368.jpg)
Kindles are evil. Ban them!!!
That's that 50Hz power for you.
-
I'm serious as a car fire.
Gasoline cars catch a light all the time. It just does not make the news, because its so frequent.
But you're going to have to start making peace with electric cars sooner or later, as they are dominating the new car market at a very rapid pace.
Probably very few new gasoline cars after 2030 - 2035.
Yeah right. Because it's so often that you see cars doing this when they have proper coolant and oil. All it takes for a electric car to burn is to get too much charge and the battery to overheat.
https://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/exploding-car-gasoline-tank%E2%80%99-during-heat-myth-experts-say
But fuel and auto experts said the “exploding gasoline tank” is a myth.
Never tell me "You gonna have to switch to (this or that technology) anyway," those are the words of a tyrant. And they're often not true. "Everyone is going to have to use punch cards eventually." Until they basically went obsolete, and data was processed some other way. They're telling my nephew that everyone will use some programming method, and getting him to learn it at age eight or nine. What do you think the odds are that this code will still be the big thing when he is an adult? I'd say about 5%.
As for EVs, actual car manufacturers are rejecting them.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/07/30/toyota-actively-lobbying-to-slow-down-ev-revolution/
So are customers.
The only way that such technology is "inevitable" would be if we have a tyranny, and it is quite literally forced down our throats. And tyrannies have a nasty habit of falling.
Here's what we know of EVs from history.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car
Here in the U.S., the first successful electric car made its debut around 1890 thanks to William Morrison, a chemist who lived in Des Moines, Iowa. His six-passenger vehicle capable of a top speed of 14 miles per hour was little more than an electrified wagon, but it helped spark interest in electric vehicles.
The early rise and fall of the electric car
To understand the popularity of electric vehicles circa 1900, it is also important to understand the development of the personal vehicle and the other options available. At the turn of the 20th century, the horse was still the primary mode of transportation. But as Americans became more prosperous, they turned to the newly invented motor vehicle -- available in steam, gasoline or electric versions -- to get around.
Steam was a tried and true energy source, having proved reliable for powering factories and trains. Some of the first self-propelled vehicles in the late 1700s relied on steam; yet it took until the 1870s for the technology to take hold in cars. Part of this is because steam wasn’t very practical for personal vehicles. Steam vehicles required long startup times -- sometimes up to 45 minutes in the cold -- and would need to be refilled with water, limiting their range.
As electric vehicles came onto the market, so did a new type of vehicle -- the gasoline-powered car -- thanks to improvements to the internal combustion engine in the 1800s. While gasoline cars had promise, they weren’t without their faults. They required a lot of manual effort to drive -- changing gears was no easy task and they needed to be started with a hand crank, making them difficult for some to operate. They were also noisy, and their exhaust was unpleasant.
Electric cars didn’t have any of the issues associated with steam or gasoline. They were quiet, easy to drive and didn’t emit a smelly pollutant like the other cars of the time. Electric cars quickly became popular with urban residents -- especially women. They were perfect for short trips around the city, and poor road conditions outside cities meant few cars of any type could venture farther. As more people gained access to electricity in the 1910s, it became easier to charge electric cars, adding to their popularity with all walks of life (including some of the “best known and prominent makers of gasoline cars” as a 1911 New York Times article pointed out).
Many innovators at the time took note of the electric vehicle’s high demand, exploring ways to improve the technology. For example, Ferdinand Porsche, founder of the sports car company by the same name, developed an electric car called the P1
in 1898. Around the same time, he created the world’s first hybrid electric car -- a vehicle that is powered by electricity and a gas engine. Thomas Edison, one of the world’s most prolific inventors, thought electric vehicles were the superior technology and worked to build a better electric vehicle battery. Even Henry Ford, who was friends with Edison, partnered with Edison to explore options for a low-cost electric car in 1914, according to Wired.
Yet, it was Henry Ford’s mass-produced Model T that dealt a blow to the electric car. Introduced in 1908, the Model T made gasoline-powered cars widely available and affordable. By 1912, the gasoline car cost only $650, while an electric roadster sold for $1,750. That same year, Charles Kettering introduced the electric starter, eliminating the need for the hand crank and giving rise to more gasoline-powered vehicle sales.
Other developments also contributed to the decline of the electric vehicle. By the 1920s, the U.S. had a better system of roads connecting cities, and Americans wanted to get out and explore. With the discovery of Texas crude oil, gas became cheap and readily available for rural Americans, and filling stations began popping up across the country. In comparison, very few Americans outside of cities had electricity at that time. In the end, electric vehicles all but disappeared by 1935.
This article has an overly rosy picture of electric vehicles, so let's point out the key part of all this.
Electric cars quickly became popular with urban residents -- especially women. They were perfect for short trips around the city, and poor road conditions outside cities meant few cars of any type could venture farther.
The electric cars of back then were structurally identical to the golf carts of today. Okay for short trips around town.
This is like saying that you use your computer just for email and Facebook. Like, you don't even have the technical ability to use Paint and Word. That sort of person would be fine with an iPod or something. But here's the thing. They can't possibly justify the price of an iPod for casual use. Same here. Get a cheap used car, not a $40,000 luxury hobby car. Or do get one, I don't care (though if you ask me, if you're only driving short distances, it's completely impractical), but don't tell me what I should be able to drive.
That you have the absolute nerve to tell other people what they can and cannot drive... Nuhh, sod off.
I use a Kindle because unlike a "smartphone" it doesn't constantly charge me for minutes every month. I don't wanna call anyone, and I don't want anyone to call me. So paying $60+ a month for some plan (read: $720 a year, and $7200 over ten years) is not cool. I don't even have $7200. It was a birthday present, and I get a fair amount of use for it. What's so elitist about that? The average Kindle is about $115 or so. The average iDevice approaches $1000, and it is probably completely unsellable due to the phone contract.
Hybrid-powered cars were involved in about 3,475 fires per every 100,000 sold.
Gasoline-powered cars, about 1,530 per 100,000 sold
Electric vehicles (EVs) saw just 25 fires per 100,000 sold.
Someone just showed me the potential of electrical fires.
Also, if hybrids are 3 times as likely to burn, doesn't that mean some component in hybrids accounts for the other 2/3? Gas is common to both, so why don't the gas burn more often than the hybrids?
That we only have 25 fires, isn't it more likely that this statistic is based on incomplete info? Like that on average, people don't buy electric vehicles enough for them to sell 100,000?
More likely your statistician has an axe to grind.
From the Electric Madness article.
To suggest, as some ignorant people have, that electric cars ‘emit no CO 2’ is
absurd because the power stations that charge them do. To charge an electric
vehicle (such as a Tesla), just once, requires the burning of 43 kilogram of coal. A
petrol car will require about 20 kilogram of petrol for the same distance. It
follows that the electric car is emitting more than twice the CO2 of a petrol car.
Here are the sums:
Drax uses about 0.31 kilogram of coal per KWhr generated.*
A Tesla battery is rated at 70 KWhr and fast charging is only 50%
efficient. It will need 140 KWhr of electricity for a single charge; this works out
as about 43 kilogram (0.31 × 140) of coal for a full charge.
The cost of electricity for the range available in a Tesla—200 miles in
summer; 100 miles in winter—works out at £22.50. The petrol for 200 miles
costs very little more and most of that cost is tax (currently about 60%) - about
£28. In winter, for 100 miles, the petrol costs just £15.
During trials between 1927-30 of British steam locomotives a typical result was that, for a 500
ton express train, coal was consumed at the rate of 20 kg per mile.† Over 200 miles therefore
4000 kg was consumed. Scaling down to a 2 ton car: 4000÷250 = 16 kg coal. Even allowing for
economies of scale, compare this to the 43 kg required by a Tesla.
Further issues
• Battery cycling - the deterioration of the capacity of a lithium battery with
charging - must be allowed for costing about £3 per cycle.‡
• Fire: even small lithium batteries are liable to catch fire or even explode. The
huge dangers for occupants in event of an accident are obvious. Firehoses would
only exacerbate the problem, causing electrocution of victims (A gas fire, even if it did happen as often as you say, would be able to be snuffed, whereas electric cars are a nuisance to put out)
* www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm ; figures from Greenpeace are higher: 0.7
kg/KWhr www.energydesk.greenpeace.org/2013/02/14/much-coal-burning-will-keep-burning/).
Windturbines take 25 years to pay off their CO2 debt (concrete, metal mining and refining etc). They seldom
last more than ten years.
† The British Steam Locomotive 1925-1965 by O.S.Nock, Ian Allan 1966. p67 Dynamometer Car Tests 1927
on LMSR Engine Royal Scot No. 6100.
‡ Incidentally, battery ‘swopping’ is unviable. An average garage refuels 1000 cars a day; how are they going
to recharge 1000 batteries every day @ 5-12 hours each?
The Tesla battery weighs 800kg—that’s nearly a ton—equivalent to 10 people.
Battery/petrol equivalent weight ratio—in summer 50:1, in winter 100:1.
In winter, in severe conditions, electric cars become death traps. Firstly, the
battery power halves every ten degree drop in temperature, so you are likely to
get stuck in a snowstorm. Then there will be no heating in the car and a blizzard
outside. You will freeze to death inside and, outside the car, you’ll die seeking
help. This would not happen in a petrol car. A petrol car’s engine remains at full
power down to the last drop of petrol and has plenty of heating. The electric car
loses power almost immediately as the battery drains—and has no heating.
As most of the numpties, who think electric cars are viable, live in towns
the above point doubtless passes them by, but the huge potential for traffic
clogging due to ‘dead’ electric vehicles has not been considered*, nor has the
issue of time to recharge. Currently an average petrol car takes about 5 minutes
to fill up with petrol and depart. If an electric car takes a minimum of 75 minutes
to recharge, the queues are going to be astronomical and the time wasted also
astronomical.
* One type of electric car is called a Leaf. This will give a wholly new meaning to ‘leaves on the road’!
The BBC tried to take an electric car from London to Edinburgh. It took more
than three days, slower than a stagecoach. Strangely, people sometimes need to
get to places quickly.
In case anyone thinks that there is a miracle battery just over the horizon,
I can absolutely assure him or her that there is not. Battery technology is mature,
and, to quote Mr John Hume, “Miracles do not happen.” (at least in technology).
The Climate Change Act requires that by 2050 all gas heating be replaced by
electric heating and all cars be electric. Besides the stupidity of turning huge
amounts of electricity back into heat, clearly no one in government has done the
maths. The results are horrendous!
43 kilogram (0.31 × 140) of coal for a full charge. For one car.
And in winter, you freeze to death because car efficiency goes down since it tries to save power.
That's that 50Hz power for you.
And how many Hz does a EV run on? It's gotta be more than a Kindle.
-
do people in florida often have a freezing problem?
what about californians?
mexicans?
australians (if they exist)?
-
I see. So Mexicans don't count.
It does snow in Florida, Mexico, and California. Just less often. I was in Arizona, and I got like 2 inches of snow.
Meanwhile, hot weather also causes the electricity to strain.
In a gas car, you can run the heater or A/C because a small amount of electricity is set aside by the alternator. Up to the point where the car don't go no mo, you are able to pull the car's weight and heat/cool the car.
An electric car, however, is pulling a 800kg battery along (I checked the average gas car engine weighs between 140 to 320 kg). Even at a high engine estimate, this battery is nearly 3 times the weight, with it being as much as 7 times the weight. This represents alot of strain as the car tries to pull itself. How much strain? Well, ironically, one area that probably should switch from gas to electric is rocket packs. This is because the weight of the fuel means that the technology has never been able to "take off", so to speak. The pack has to push up against its own weight, using large quantities of fuel. It can only do so for a few minutes, making it impractical. You can increase the capacity, but the problem only worsens.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/sep/23/jetpacks-science-scientists
At present, the most practical fuel sources we have are chemical. Jet fuel and rocket fuel are both made using highly reactive chemicals, which have physical mass that has to be accounted for. The more energy you need, the more fuel you need for your flying vehicle. The more fuel you need, the more your vehicle weighs. The more it weighs, the more energy is needed to move it, and thus a vicious cycle occurs (which is also an appropriate term for pedal-powered flight).
The same dynamic here. A big heavy freight of a battery is used trying to pretend that electric cars are something more than hobby golf carts for resort towns. Add this to a drive through Arizona or California during the height of summer, and you have a recipe to get heatstroke and die. But congratulations, everyone demanding we make this shift has literal blood on their hands.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/renewable-energy/electric-vehicles-have-a-dark-side-too-blood-batteries-and-child-labour-82567
In fact, let's discuss blood batteries. Every lb or so of cobalt, a kid in China or DRC gets to work to death for a lousy buck. If even that.
Since the age of nine, John had worked as a human mule, carrying bags after bags of cobalt for just $0.75 a day. During a work day, John fell into a tunnel.
He was dragged out by fellow workers. But John was left alone on the ground, and when his parents discovered the accident, they rushed to the mining site, but it was too late. The doctors say John will never be able to walk again because he is paralysed.
-
So because its impractical for trucks and rockets and whatevr else, battery EV should be banned?
Is that what youre saying?
How about this
Driving is impractical in the downtown congested cities.
Therefore NO ONE ANYWHERE should be driving single occupancy vehicles.
-
While I find EVs to currently be impractical for a myriad of reasons, I'm not entirely against EVs.
-
Excactly
So why is bulmb so upset?
-
The thread morphed.
As for new cars check the Toyota Mirai. Mirai runs on the Toyota Fuel Cell System (TFCS).
https://www.toyota.com/mirai/
TOYOTA Fuel cell - How does it work?
-
Excactly
So why is bulmb so upset?
I'm upset with your "Well you better learn to accept it because it's coming." Why is it coming? Because blowhard Biden tried to force us to buy through tampering with gas supply? Most people I see on the road are using gas cars. Most people outside California, Vermont, or Oregon like to get places and refuel in time to get to work. The only people I do see using electric cars come after hours to the library to hook up their cars to mooch off the library's power. Scumbag parasites that shit where they eat. Nevertheless the library seems to allow this so whatever.
But a person should be allowed to drive whatever car they want, and not have climate police basically phase out their mode of transport in favor of one that isn't efficient after 100 years of tinkering. 1890. That's when electric cars came out. They are fine for tramcars on the boardwalk. They are fine for cars that never move past a premise (golf course, small town like Colonial Beach). They are obviously not fine for that 500+ mile business trip. And it is not fine to tell everyone what engine they should have, nor ignition type, nor window type, nor color.
If I told you "In the future, red cars will be banned, so you had better get used to this and sell me your red car," you should rightly tell me to fuck off and never ever try to buy your nice red car again. Yet somehow this behavior is acceptable for the smug environmental types convinced that an impractical technology will be widely embraced everywhere.
This is a technology that is imposed by fiat, much like the nearly mandatory Windows 10 upgrade. I am still using 8.1 btw. I hacked my own computer's registry so it wouldn't try to auto-update. Likewise, whether EVs succeed or not, climate rules or no climate rules, depends on whether people are buying. I took marketing. There are three classes of buyers. People who want to have the latest junk, people who only buy once the bugs are ironed out (most people are here), and people like me who only buy a technology when it is on its way to being replaced and is now dirt cheap. We bought DVDs when Blu-Ray was a thing but surprise, Blu-Rays were really too soon, and the public wasn't ready to switch. If we ever do embrace electric vehicles, I pretty much have no strong reason to buy a car. I live in town, and most places I wanna be, I can get to on foot. But I suspect EVs will go the way of the Blu-Ray. The public isn't ready to embrace it, and there aren't nearly enough charging stations, and the cars take too damned long to charge, meaning refuel bottleneck. It's still there, but it hasn't reallt taken over like they thought it would.
Why Aren't More People Buying Electric Cars (https://magazine.northeast.aaa.com/daily/life/cars-trucks/electric-vehicles/buying-electric-cars/#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC&country=US)?
-
Take everything you said and flip it.
"Who killed the electric car" is a short doc.
Why are all the libtards forced to use gas cars?
Seriusly
You think big auto and big oil have your best interests in mind?
Cars r&d are 5-7yr spans before launch.
You think big auto will let govt roll them on such an investment?
-
Excactly
So why is bulmb so upset?
I'm upset with your "Well you better learn to accept it because it's coming." Why is it coming? Because blowhard Biden tried to force us to buy through tampering with gas supply?
That would be funny if it weren't so woefully ignorant. The EV revolution has been going on for a long time pre-Biden.
Most people I see on the road are using gas cars.
Yes, and up to about 1911 most people you could see on the road were using horse and buggys.
But a person should be allowed to drive whatever car they want, and not have climate police basically phase out their mode of transport in favor of one that isn't efficient after 100 years of tinkering.
You do realize that there are many automobiles you are not allowed to drive due to emissions standards that have been in place for decades, right?
If I told you "In the future, red cars will be banned, so you had better get used to this and sell me your red car," you should rightly tell me to fuck off and never ever try to buy your nice red car again. Yet somehow this behavior is acceptable for the smug environmental types convinced that an impractical technology will be widely embraced everywhere.
Wow, quite the strawman you got there. How does car color impact emissions?
I am still using 8.1 btw.
And you're also the last person who gets DVD's by mail from Netflix. Welcome to the 21st century.
-
I still buy CD and DVDs. I like to think of it as sequestering carbon inside my home. ;)
-
Take everything you said and flip it.
"Who killed the electric car" is a short doc.
Why are all the libtards forced to use gas cars?
Nobody is forcing you to drive a gas car. You want to drive an electric car, go right ahead. Unlike the Climate Accords, which will demand that everything switch by 2050 to electric, by which time I hope to be dead.
I won't let you virtue signal though. I will tell you flatly that forests are getting bulldozed to clear space for cobalt and lithium mines which is releasing alot of heat and CO2 while slashing and burning, I will tell you that electric vehicles are only as good as their energy source and for alot of places that source is as dirty as coal or dangerous as uranium, I will tell you that each car has a very unenvironmental production and disposal and the time in between they use alot of energy from these same dirty/dangerous power plants, and that little children are forced to mine lithium and cobalt in inhumane conditions while you sit there and self-congratulate.
If you still wanna go out and get an electric car, you as a human are allowed to make any choice you want. Nobody is stopping you. But (1) I don't approve of climate people telling me that in 30 years or so, I'll have no choice but to buy a car that is expensive, against the market (i.e. nobody but the woke wants it), and completely juices out the grid. (2) And you don't get to virtue signal, because you aren't being virtuous.
-
Yeah right. Because it's so often that you see cars doing this when they have proper coolant and oil. All it takes for a electric car to burn is to get too much charge and the battery to overheat.
The only way that such technology is "inevitable" would be if we have a tyranny, and it is quite literally forced down our throats. And tyrannies have a nasty habit of falling.
---------------------
Here are the sums:
Drax uses about 0.31 kilogram of coal per KWhr generated.*
A Tesla battery is rated at 70 KWhr and fast charging is only 50%
efficient. It will need 140 KWhr of electricity for a single charge; this works out
as about 43 kilogram
-----------------------
And how many Hz does a EV run on? It's gotta be more than a Kindle.
Your facts are older than the steam engine. I wonder if you where specifically looking for info from before 2017?
1 - It takes energy to move an object, this is an inherit physical law. Batteries and fuel are where that energy is stored. But gasoline cars run hotter with fuel in the hot system. This means they will catch a light more often. Its backed by the facts and all studies. There have been 6.6 million EV's sold in 2021, so there data was not from "just a few"
2 - No one will force you to buy an electric car, you will chose to do so all by yourself. EV's are getting a lot cheaper as other brands enter the market. EV's are already cheaper over a 3 year time frame in many markets due to charging being so much cheaper than filling up with fuel. There is currently a MASSIVE shortage of EV vehicles as companies can not produce them faster than people are buying them. EV's outperform gasoline cars in all areas except 1, range.
3 - The EV market is growing at about 60% a year. By about 2030's, pretty much every car sold will be electric. This also means there will be a mass investor exodus of ICE technologies in about 5 to 10 years. This means closing down of ICE infrastructure, including Oil refineries, drilling, factories making ICE, ext. This will push the price of gasoline sky high while reducing the availability of it.
4 - Fast charging can increase your car range of up to about 30 miles a minute in some models now. Range anxiety is for people who know only read articles posted before the discovery of the wheel.
5 - US electric grid has pretty much abandoned Coal power generation. This means to make your coal argument work, you will need to teleport to the past. Gas, nuclear and renewables are increasingly taking the lion share of electric generation, meaning EV's are getting cleaner every year.
6 - Lithium batteries are guaranteed to well over 10 years. I have a Lithium battery in my home with a 18 year guarantee. The batteries will outlast most cars normal wear and tear use.
7 - EV's are DC, they dont run on hertz.
-
I will tell you flatly that forests are getting bulldozed to clear space for cobalt and lithium mines which is releasing alot of heat and CO2 while slashing and burning, I will tell you that electric vehicles are only as good as their energy source and for alot of places that source is as dirty as coal or dangerous as uranium, I will tell you that each car has a very unenvironmental production and disposal and the time in between they use alot of energy from these same dirty/dangerous power plants, and that little children are forced to mine lithium and cobalt in inhumane conditions while you sit there and self-congratulate.
Your like an out of date encyclopaedia written by an orangutang.
Australia's Greenbushes mine is the worlds largest lithium mine, it currently produces more than 10% of global lithium supply by itself. From one end to end, measured at the furthest points on the mine, is about 4km across. https://goo.gl/maps/2mWV1v2Uah6r7etu9
Then you have Athabasca oil sands in Canada, this produdes about 1.6% of global oil supply and covers and area over 4000km2. https://goo.gl/maps/jgvaBjYLDno7jLCs7
Every single Lithium mine on earth is smaller than one Tar sands mine that produces 1.6% of the worlds oil.
Also, most new batteries for EV's dont use Cobalt. And if you want to make the moral argument that kids where at some point briefly used to mine cobalt, then you should include the 150 000 innocent people who got blown to bits in Iraq for oil too.
-
Yeah right. Because it's so often that you see cars doing this when they have proper coolant and oil. All it takes for a electric car to burn is to get too much charge and the battery to overheat.
The only way that such technology is "inevitable" would be if we have a tyranny, and it is quite literally forced down our throats. And tyrannies have a nasty habit of falling.
---------------------
Here are the sums:
Drax uses about 0.31 kilogram of coal per KWhr generated.*
A Tesla battery is rated at 70 KWhr and fast charging is only 50%
efficient. It will need 140 KWhr of electricity for a single charge; this works out
as about 43 kilogram
-----------------------
And how many Hz does a EV run on? It's gotta be more than a Kindle.
Your facts are older than the steam engine. I wonder if you where specifically looking for info from before 2017?
1 - It takes energy to move an object, this is an inherit physical law. Batteries and fuel are where that energy is stored. But gasoline cars run hotter with fuel in the hot system. This means they will catch a light more often. Its backed by the facts and all studies. There have been 6.6 million EV's sold in 2021, so there data was not from "just a few"
2 - No one will force you to buy an electric car, you will chose to do so all by yourself. EV's are getting a lot cheaper as other brands enter the market. EV's are already cheaper over a 3 year time frame in many markets due to charging being so much cheaper than filling up with fuel. There is currently a MASSIVE shortage of EV vehicles as companies can not produce them faster than people are buying them. EV's outperform gasoline cars in all areas except 1, range.
3 - The EV market is growing at about 60% a year. By about 2030's, pretty much every car sold will be electric. This also means there will be a mass investor exodus of ICE technologies in about 5 to 10 years. This means closing down of ICE infrastructure, including Oil refineries, drilling, factories making ICE, ext. This will push the price of gasoline sky high while reducing the availability of it.
4 - Fast charging can increase your car range of up to about 30 miles a minute in some models now. Range anxiety is for people who know only read articles posted before the discovery of the wheel.
5 - US electric grid has pretty much abandoned Coal power generation. This means to make your coal argument work, you will need to teleport to the past. Gas, nuclear and renewables are increasingly taking the lion share of electric generation, meaning EV's are getting cleaner every year.
6 - Lithium batteries are guaranteed to well over 10 years. I have a Lithium battery in my home with a 18 year guarantee. The batteries will outlast most cars normal wear and tear use.
7 - EV's are DC, they dont run on hertz.
The US Electric grid has not pretty much abandoned coal. The handful of states where it has, they have rolling brown outs because they don't produce sufficient electricity via other sources to meet the demand.
Lithium batteries are guaranteed. That statement is laughable. If they were guaranteed, EV owners who have had to replace their batteries after only 2-3 years shouldn't have to pay for the battery replacement which is in the 10s of thousands of dollars.
-
The US Electric grid has not pretty much abandoned coal. The handful of states where it has, they have rolling brown outs because they don't produce sufficient electricity via other sources to meet the demand.
Coal is going away faster than Trumps hopes to win another election.
(https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2021.07.28/main.svg)
Coal is expensive compared to every other source. Utility providers are dumping it due to cost. Renewables and Gas are replacing it as it goes away. Give it 5 to 10 years and Coal will be gone.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896
Lithium batteries are guaranteed. That statement is laughable. If they were guaranteed, EV owners who have had to replace their batteries after only 2-3 years shouldn't have to pay for the battery replacement which is in the 10s of thousands of dollars.
My Batteries literally come with a 10 (not 18, I just checked again) year guarantee to 80% capacity.
https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty
Tesla car batteries are guaranteed to 8 years or 240 000km.
Where do you guys get your info from? Do you exclusively read the way back machine?
-
I will tell you flatly that forests are getting bulldozed to clear space for cobalt and lithium mines which is releasing alot of heat and CO2 while slashing and burning, I will tell you that electric vehicles are only as good as their energy source and for alot of places that source is as dirty as coal or dangerous as uranium, I will tell you that each car has a very unenvironmental production and disposal and the time in between they use alot of energy from these same dirty/dangerous power plants, and that little children are forced to mine lithium and cobalt in inhumane conditions while you sit there and self-congratulate.
Your like an out of date encyclopaedia written by an orangutang.
Australia's Greenbushes mine is the worlds largest lithium mine, it currently produces more than 10% of global lithium supply by itself. From one end to end, measured at the furthest points on the mine, is about 4km across. https://goo.gl/maps/2mWV1v2Uah6r7etu9
Then you have Athabasca oil sands in Canada, this produdes about 1.6% of global oil supply and covers and area over 4000km2. https://goo.gl/maps/jgvaBjYLDno7jLCs7
Every single Lithium mine on earth is smaller than one Tar sands mine that produces 1.6% of the worlds oil.
Also, most new batteries for EV's dont use Cobalt. And if you want to make the moral argument that kids where at some point briefly used to mine cobalt, then you should include the 150 000 innocent people who got blown to bits in Iraq for oil too.
Fair enough, let's look at the five types of batteries and you can tell me which ones they use that are now perfect and worthy of your virtue signalling.
https://www.greencars.com/greencars-101/different-types-of-ev-batteries
1. Lithium-Ion
2. Nickel-Metal Hydride
3. Lead-Acid
4. Ultracapacitors
5. Solid-State
So let's see...
1. Continued mining of lithium. I don't see how the exclusion of cobalt makes much of a difference.
https://www.lithiumbatterytech.com/the-impact-of-lithium-mining-on-the-environment/
Environmental Impact of Lithium Mining
Most papers point out that the raw brine produced during the mining of lithium mines in salt lakes can change the physicochemical properties of the soil, leading to soil salinization. Large-scale salt lake mining will also aggravate the erosion of soil, water and soil in the area, and even change the original topography and destroy the local landscape environment.
This is mainly manifested in the damage caused by the construction of roads during the infrastructure construction period, the construction of salt fields and various buildings during the mining period, which cannot be repaired in the short term, and most of the salt lake lithium mining areas mentioned above have harsh climates but good ecology. Therefore, the ecological restoration of the mining area will also be difficult.
Although the mining method of spodumene mine is hole mining, which has little impact on the surface ecological environment, the beneficiation requires a large amount of land, which seriously damages the local vegetation, and may even change the composition and fertility of the soil. Large-scale earthwork development is likely to cause disasters such as soil erosion and landslides.
2. So now you're mining for nickel.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/24/nickel-mining-hidden-environmental-cost-electric-cars-batteries
Plumes of sulphur dioxide choking the skies, churned earth blanketed in cancerous dust, rivers running blood-red – environmental campaigners have painted a grim picture of the nickel mines and smelters feeding the electric vehicle industry.
3. Do I need to tell you that lead itself is toxic, that mining it probably kills people in fair amounts, and that whatever acid is in this probably is no good either? Apparently, yes, I do.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21573711/
Mining and smelting are important economic activities. However, mining-related industries are also some of the largest sources of environmental pollution from heavy metals. China is one of the largest producers and consumers of lead and zinc in the world. A large amount of lead, zinc, and related elements, such as cadmium, have been released into the environment due to mineral processing activities and have impacted water resources, soils, vegetables, and crops. In some areas, this pollution is hazardous to human health.
4. I had to look up what Ultracapacitors were.
https://vlab.amrita.edu/?sub=77&brch=270&sim=1390&cnt=1
Ultracapacitors are made up of two metal plates coated with loosely packed activated carbon which is immersed in electrolyte with positive and negative ions.
Wasn't everyone telling us that carbon is so bad, and we should be cutting down on the amount we use? Yet here we're using it for batteries. Also, the article mentions that these are not really batteries, but the back-up energy systems to help lighten the load of lithium batteries. So anything bad about lithium is still true of this.
5. Solid state batteries are supposedly made by using ceramics. These are the only ones that sound good. However...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_battery#Challenges
It was estimated in 2012 that, based on then-current technology, a 20 Ah solid-state battery cell would cost US$100,000, and a high-range electric car would require between 800 and 1,000 of such cells.
The cost is impractical (wikipedia goes on to say that the technology has alot of problems and failures, so paying $100k doesn't guarantee it will work), meaning that this is just a pipedream and you are stuck with the other options, all of which are not eco-friendly.
I never said we don't have a very high amount of evil involved in the oil trade. But any alternative starts with using materials we already have, not scouring the world for ones that force more people into unclean mining conditions. Or simply spraying chemicals into the soil and air.
You get to buy whatever car you want. But I get to slam you for virtue signalling about it. I am well aware of the amount of wars we've had with the Middle East, despite having a supply of oil in our own backyard. You seem to like to play pretend that your cars run on sunshine and daisies and unicorns. Sorry, but this is what lithium mining does to soil.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1024679919835435028/main-qimg-54a9d300cdfdb172f1d5d46b1efbe86c-c.jpg)
Here's an actual environmentalist scoffing at you.
https://peaceandplanetnews.org/everything-invented-isnt-progress/
(https://peaceandplanetnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/lithium-mine.jpg)
We are told we need this mine because we are too reliant on foreign sources of lithium. The mining process will contaminate billions of gallons of ground water that will remain contaminated for hundreds of years. The mine will consume 3,224 gallons of water a minute and also create massive mounds of waste. Tribal lands will be harmed. The largest shareholder in the mining operation on leased federal land is a foreign company.
-
Fair enough, let's look at the five types of batteries and you can tell me which ones they use that are now perfect and worthy of your virtue signalling.
You can save yourself time by ignoring that article.
Batteries come in lots of formats and materials. They are not all made the same.
To get the right battery for a car you need to balance cost, charge + discharge rate, cycle life and energy density. Some batteries are good at one, but bad at another.
Lead acid batteries have bad energy densities, terrible charge depth and bad cycle life
Nickel-Metal Hydride are average at all factors, but low cycle life
And ultra capcitors and solid state batteries can barely leave the lab.
So right now we have lithium-Ion.
Does Lithium-Ion do environmental damage during the production and refining it, yes. But it does thousands of times LESS damage than the ICE industry per vehicle. Your environmental argument only makes sense if oil did not do mass environmental damage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills)
Here is a list of Oil spills, each of these have done more environmental damage than any single Lithium-mine would do over its life time.
-
Here's an actual environmentalist scoffing at you.
https://peaceandplanetnews.org/everything-invented-isnt-progress/
(https://peaceandplanetnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/lithium-mine.jpg)
Oh god you did it! This is the level of competence I expect from the anti EV people, and you delivered.
You just so nicely posted a picture of the Southern Cross Gold mine
https://www.minjargold.com.au/projects/barto-gold-mining/
See if you can find the resemblance
here it is on Google maps - https://goo.gl/maps/sGA9a4EBQVWctcHV8
Its about the same size as the lithium mine that produces 10% of the worlds Lithium. Its also facing bankruptcy due to bad yield. So this old mine that is leaching acid in the soil is doing comparable damage to the largest Lithium Mine on earth. Are you now going to strongly be against all Gold as well? Gonna start picketing outside of Gold mines?
Maybe the environmentalist was as clever as you, and could not tell the difference between their ass and elbow.
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1024679919835435028/main-qimg-54a9d300cdfdb172f1d5d46b1efbe86c-c.jpg)
And I found the Mine in the second pic. Its the BHP Minera Escondida mine in Chilli. What does it mine? Copper!
https://www.bhp.com/what-we-do/global-locations/chile/escondida
and location - https://goo.gl/maps/LBtAqGR8ewbQ61qw8
I guess your against all electricity now too? Better rip those evil wires out of your house!
Do you specifically look for information that is wrong?
-
The US Electric grid has not pretty much abandoned coal. The handful of states where it has, they have rolling brown outs because they don't produce sufficient electricity via other sources to meet the demand.
Coal is going away faster than Trumps hopes to win another election.
(https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2021.07.28/main.svg)
Coal is expensive compared to every other source. Utility providers are dumping it due to cost. Renewables and Gas are replacing it as it goes away. Give it 5 to 10 years and Coal will be gone.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896
Lithium batteries are guaranteed. That statement is laughable. If they were guaranteed, EV owners who have had to replace their batteries after only 2-3 years shouldn't have to pay for the battery replacement which is in the 10s of thousands of dollars.
My Batteries literally come with a 10 (not 18, I just checked again) year guarantee to 80% capacity.
https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty
Tesla car batteries are guaranteed to 8 years or 240 000km.
Where do you guys get your info from? Do you exclusively read the way back machine?
8 Years? Life of the battery as advertised is 300-500k miles or roughly 21 to 25 years.
77k miles in batter requires a replacement...
https://www.techspot.com/news/96080-tesla-owner-refuses-pay-20000-new-battery-gets.html
-
8 Years? Life of the battery as advertised is 300-500k miles or roughly 21 to 25 years.
77k miles in batter requires a replacement...
https://www.techspot.com/news/96080-tesla-owner-refuses-pay-20000-new-battery-gets.html
Guarantee is something that the manufacturer will replace if there is a defect within its guarantee period.
Life of a product is how long it can approximately last.
Does Ford still have to fix defects in the original Model T?
The article is about a car purchased in 2013, which is 9 years ago. My wife has a 8 year old Mazda that needed the radiator replaced, guess what, Mazda did not replace it. Shocked? No?
Probably because you have higher expectations from Tesla than you have of other brands.
-
I have a plugin hybrid. I have solar panels on my house. Overall, my car gets 81 miles per gallon (34.44 km/l). My brother has a total electric car with solar panels on his house. If there will be a future, this is what the future will look like.
-
Take everything you said and flip it.
"Who killed the electric car" is a short doc.
Why are all the libtards forced to use gas cars?
Nobody is forcing you to drive a gas car. You want to drive an electric car, go right ahead. Unlike the Climate Accords, which will demand that everything switch by 2050 to electric, by which time I hope to be dead.
Do you not know what a monopoly is?
Seriously
"Who killed the electric car" documentsey? answer = big oil.
I have been forced to and so has everyone else for the past 30yrs to drive gas because electric was unattainable.
My goodness
Try and comprehend somethig.
Anything.
Are you even a real person?
2050
There you go
Like i said its years away for total gasV phase out.
-
Take everything you said and flip it.
"Who killed the electric car" is a short doc.
Why are all the libtards forced to use gas cars?
Nobody is forcing you to drive a gas car. You want to drive an electric car, go right ahead. Unlike the Climate Accords, which will demand that everything switch by 2050 to electric, by which time I hope to be dead.
Do you not know what a monopoly is?
Seriously
"Who killed the electric car" documentsey? answer = big oil.
I have been forced to and so has everyone else for the past 30yrs to drive gas because electric was unattainable.
My goodness
Try and comprehend somethig.
Anything.
Are you even a real person?
2050
There you go
Like i said its years away for total gasV phase out.
Electric has never been unattainable. That's bullcrap. At every gas station, you can find a plug somewhere on premises and try to plug into their power. There have always been small function electric cars (golf carts). Now, if they deliberately tried to phase gas out, it would be a state monopoly. It would also be an unpleasant situation for regular people as they are herded and forced into a corner by goofballs who insist that there will be some kind of crisis if we burned the same fuels we have worked with for centuries.
Here's what I understand.
(https://thesecularheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Tytler-Chart.jpg)
As you let other people (namely the government) decide what you shall eat and what you shall wear, you drift toward the top left corner of this cycle. You spend the next 40 or 50 years climbing your way out of that. If you want to do that in some other country whatever. When you start doing this in my country, my state, in my town, you've basically done the social equivalent of trying to rape me. I don't take kindly to that. I show you my state's logo.
(https://libertyflagandbanner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/virginia-flag.jpg)
Thus Always to Tyrants. We spear them to death, knock off their crowns, and stomp on their bodies.
There is no king but King Jesus. It is only when we lose our faith that we become enslaved to secular materialism and say things like "It's not my fault that we now have power plants spewing stuff everywhere." Or "It's not my problem that small towns have big holes outside filled with lifeless soil being people needed their lithium batteries." Yes, I am telling you that it is your problem what you do to the world while you tell yourself you have saved it.
You are the ones that are not real people. You have no conscience, no morality, and no drive for sentiment. You don't long for things of your childhood, you want things to rush forward even if "progress" takes you right here.
(https://miro.medium.com/max/1840/1*Kpc0NqsjtQEWnSKlUWx1yg.jpeg)
Driving straight off a cliff is not progress.
-
There is no king but King Jesus.
(https://i.imgur.com/mmtAY4K.jpg)
-
There is no king but King Jesus.
(https://i.imgur.com/mmtAY4K.jpg)
Yeah, Jesus would be cool with riding around on a golf cart. Jesus is chill with alot of things. Though he doesn't actually look like that. That's a painter's depiction that stuck.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/CfVGsQ44j53rfMaP2iyaRRXBp0D4Zb0miJx4eKYBwfLk6meFRjJkYZCkO0wSeoEUQtHMJpljQRhEAQcHIEvH=w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu)
So ask yourself, how cool would he be with not using existing resources to make existing golf carts, but to make expensive engines that ravage towns by destructive mining? Such things create hunger and thirst.
And what he wouldn't be cool with is crucifying people for not going along with things. As I understand it, the whole big state thing (along with big religion) was what got him killed.
And make no mistake, telling other people what they have to drive in thirty years is very much big state. If I wanna drive the same car I've had since my parents have been alive, that is my business. It is not your business, nor Uncle Joe's. Uncle Sam used to leave people alone about their choice in transport, but Uncle Joe is a busybody who wants people in lockstep.
Go and learn why crucifixion was such a powerful symbol.
https://www.ranker.com/list/history-of-japanese-crucifixion/melissa-sartore
https://www.thedailybeast.com/islamic-extremists-now-crucifying-people-in-syriaand-tweeting-out-the-pictures
It is a means of exerting authority over others by claiming humans (instead of only God, and by that I don't mean priests of a Christian state, bur literally no humans) have the right to toeture other humans for not doing or believing as they do.
The people protesting fascism ought to bother learning what it is. It is not "nationalism". Nationalism is patriotism, not being a traitor to one's actual country. Fascism is when you subvert the spirit of your country to have an authoritarian system. The front men of fascism are often thugs in black garments.
(And no don't quote some online dictionary's redefining of the term)
-
So ask yourself, how cool would he be with not using existing resources to make existing golf carts, but to make expensive engines that ravage towns by destructive mining? Such things create hunger and thirst.
You mean like the copper mine you posted a picture of?
And what he wouldn't be cool with is crucifying people for not going along with things. As I understand it, the whole big state thing (along with big religion) was what got him killed.
If memory serves, he died for our sins. He had to die by any means, that was god's plan all along. You see god already killed everyone, the greatest genocide ever, save for a 900 year old ship builder and his family and a pair of mosquitos, etc. So he had to send down a more earthly individual only to have him killed too.
And make no mistake, telling other people what they have to drive in thirty years is very much big state. If I wanna drive the same car I've had since my parents have been alive, that is my business. It is not your business, nor Uncle Joe's. Uncle Sam used to leave people alone about their choice in transport, but Uncle Joe is a busybody who wants people in lockstep.
You realize that there are many cars you haven't been allowed to drive for decades, right? You realize that the government has forever mandated safety features in cars and emission standards, right? You realize that the government mandates that you have a valid driver's license and that your car passes inspections otherwise you can't register it, which is mandatory as well, without which you can't even drive a golf cart, right? As well as the acceptable level of bad stuff in your food and water, right? Oh the tyranny of it all!
What are you, one of those sovereign citizen idiots?
Nationalism is patriotism...
Nationalism is an excessive, aggressive form of patriotism. Fascism is usually a combination of the two.
An individual can be patriotic without believing that they're better than other people just because of what country they were born in. Those with nationalist beliefs believe that their country of origin makes them superior to people from other countries.
Do you think you are better than others in other nations just because you happened to be born within US borders? I bet you do.
-
Take everything you said and flip it.
"Who killed the electric car" is a short doc.
Why are all the libtards forced to use gas cars?
Nobody is forcing you to drive a gas car. You want to drive an electric car, go right ahead. Unlike the Climate Accords, which will demand that everything switch by 2050 to electric, by which time I hope to be dead.
Do you not know what a monopoly is?
Seriously
"Who killed the electric car" documentsey? answer = big oil.
I have been forced to and so has everyone else for the past 30yrs to drive gas because electric was unattainable.
My goodness
Try and comprehend somethig.
Anything.
Are you even a real person?
2050
There you go
Like i said its years away for total gasV phase out.
Electric has never been unattainable. That's bullcrap. At every gas station, you can find a plug somewhere on premises and try to plug into their power. There have always been small function electric cars (golf carts). Now, if they deliberately tried to phase gas out, it would be a state monopoly. It would also be an unpleasant situation for regular people as they are herded and forced into a corner by goofballs who insist that there will be some kind of crisis if we burned the same fuels we have worked with for centuries.
Here's what I understand.
(https://thesecularheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Tytler-Chart.jpg)
As you let other people (namely the government) decide what you shall eat and what you shall wear, you drift toward the top left corner of this cycle. You spend the next 40 or 50 years climbing your way out of that. If you want to do that in some other country whatever. When you start doing this in my country, my state, in my town, you've basically done the social equivalent of trying to rape me. I don't take kindly to that. I show you my state's logo.
(https://libertyflagandbanner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/virginia-flag.jpg)
Thus Always to Tyrants. We spear them to death, knock off their crowns, and stomp on their bodies.
There is no king but King Jesus. It is only when we lose our faith that we become enslaved to secular materialism and say things like "It's not my fault that we now have power plants spewing stuff everywhere." Or "It's not my problem that small towns have big holes outside filled with lifeless soil being people needed their lithium batteries." Yes, I am telling you that it is your problem what you do to the world while you tell yourself you have saved it.
You are the ones that are not real people. You have no conscience, no morality, and no drive for sentiment. You don't long for things of your childhood, you want things to rush forward even if "progress" takes you right here.
(https://miro.medium.com/max/1840/1*Kpc0NqsjtQEWnSKlUWx1yg.jpeg)
Driving straight off a cliff is not progress.
Holyshit
So what happened to the EVs in the 90s?
Why were the confiscated?
-
So ask yourself, how cool would he be with not using existing resources to make existing golf carts, but to make expensive engines that ravage towns by destructive mining? Such things create hunger and thirst.
You mean like the copper mine you posted a picture of?
Lithium mine. A copper mine looks like...
(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/axiomimagesthumbs-or/proxy/original/AX130_040-00002.jpg)
Note the gold-colored strips. Lithium leaves greyish strips behind.
And what he wouldn't be cool with is crucifying people for not going along with things. As I understand it, the whole big state thing (along with big religion) was what got him killed.
If memory serves, he died for our sins. He had to die by any means, that was god's plan all along. You see god already killed everyone, the greatest genocide ever, save for a 900 year old ship builder and his family and a pair of mosquitos, etc. So he had to send down a more earthly individual only to have him killed too.
This is misunderstanding. He died because the Jewish leaders were threatened that someone was the Messiah and didn't ask for their permission. Read up on the significance of the gate he entered on Palm Sunday. About five days later, the temple leaders managed to convince the Romans that he was a tax deviant and convince the crowds that a real Messiah should be a violent ruler that would get rid of Romans.
His followers understood that Jesus died for the sins of all people, and decided not to act against Rome. The Jews led an agry revolt against Rome and lost their Temple. They then created a myth that has been adapted into Revelation that the Messiah would come (they added the word "again" to make it fir Christian text) to take care of all the sinners and state leaders.
But if Jesus really died for all sins, we mean all sins. This has been lost by embracing the Revelation heresy. Did Jesus die so that people you think are sinful will be punished, and everyone must think and act the same?
No, a careful reading of the gospel reveals he died BECAUSE of that, and he died so that the world would no longer be governed by lockstep. He died for all our sins. And our biggest sin is statism. Wanting kings to govern us, instead of God (which he won't, meaning anarchy).
And make no mistake, telling other people what they have to drive in thirty years is very much big state. If I wanna drive the same car I've had since my parents have been alive, that is my business. It is not your business, nor Uncle Joe's. Uncle Sam used to leave people alone about their choice in transport, but Uncle Joe is a busybody who wants people in lockstep.
You realize that there are many cars you haven't been allowed to drive for decades, right? You realize that the government has forever mandated safety features in cars and emission standards, right? You realize that the government mandates that you have a valid driver's license and that your car passes inspections otherwise you can't register it, which is mandatory as well, without which you can't even drive a golf cart, right? As well as the acceptable level of bad stuff in your food and water, right? Oh the tyranny of it all!
So did you that cycle I posted earlier? You know, this one.
(https://thesecularheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Tytler-Chart.jpg)
It talks in depth about these "safety" measures.
https://thesecularheretic.com/stay-safe-the-rise-of-safetyism/
Each of these safety measures, we trade away a bit of freedom.
What are you, one of those sovereign citizen idiots?
Yes. I am a sovereign citizen idiot. Erm, I am a sovereign citizen.
-
Note the gold-colored strips. Lithium leaves greyish strips behind
You know less than nothing of what you are talking about.
You have not yet posted a single picture of a lithium mine. What you have posted is facebook spam of gold or copper mines with memeable bad information on them, while telling anyone that has less than 4 brain cells exactly what they want to hear.
Do you want to go down the route of showing me what a lithium mine looks like yet? Then laying it over another picture of the tar sands in Canada and pretend that batteries are the "real problem"
The same people who keep telling everyone to "wake up sheeple" always seem to be the last to actually look into the things they are saying.
-
So ask yourself, how cool would he be with not using existing resources to make existing golf carts, but to make expensive engines that ravage towns by destructive mining? Such things create hunger and thirst.
You mean like the copper mine you posted a picture of?
Lithium mine. A copper mine looks like...
(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/axiomimagesthumbs-or/proxy/original/AX130_040-00002.jpg)
Note the gold-colored strips. Lithium leaves greyish strips behind.
(https://i.imgur.com/wb3dcUQ.jpg)
And what he wouldn't be cool with is crucifying people for not going along with things. As I understand it, the whole big state thing (along with big religion) was what got him killed.
If memory serves, he died for our sins. He had to die by any means, that was god's plan all along. You see god already killed everyone, the greatest genocide ever, save for a 900 year old ship builder and his family and a pair of mosquitos, etc. So he had to send down a more earthly individual only to have him killed too.
No, a careful reading of the gospel reveals he died BECAUSE...
Which gospel did you "carefully" read?
And make no mistake, telling other people what they have to drive in thirty years is very much big state. If I wanna drive the same car I've had since my parents have been alive, that is my business. It is not your business, nor Uncle Joe's. Uncle Sam used to leave people alone about their choice in transport, but Uncle Joe is a busybody who wants people in lockstep.
You realize that there are many cars you haven't been allowed to drive for decades, right? You realize that the government has forever mandated safety features in cars and emission standards, right? You realize that the government mandates that you have a valid driver's license and that your car passes inspections otherwise you can't register it, which is mandatory as well, without which you can't even drive a golf cart, right? As well as the acceptable level of bad stuff in your food and water, right? Oh the tyranny of it all!
So did you that cycle I posted earlier? You know, this one.
So you don't realize these things. Got it.
What are you, one of those sovereign citizen idiots?
Yes. I am a sovereign citizen idiot. Erm, I am a sovereign citizen.
Do you have a valid driver's license?
Do you pay taxes?
And for the love of Jesus, use the quote feature, stop with the blue garbage (and not just the content). You make a mess of everything. If you can't quote properly you obviously are incapable of making an argument properly.
-
why did the EV in the 90s get confiscated?
-
why did the EV in the 90s get confiscated?
To be fair to the 90's electric cars that never happened. Battery technology really struggled to make a compelling technology until modern Lithium-Ion showed up. And after that it was a cost per Kwh problem. All while fuel was cheaper than water.
The development of cell phones and laptops drove new battery technology that allowed EV's to become a thing. Im not sure if EV's would have seen any mass adoption even if oil companies where not being massive jerks.
Today, EV's are rapidly becoming cheaper to own than ICE cars. ICE cars will naturally disappear from our roads. Trucks and heavy duty vehicles may opt for Hydrogen fuel cells over time. Which as basically just EV's with an extra step.
-
Irrelevant
Bulba is under the insane belief monpoliues and govt control only apply to ev and his saintly big oil would never abuse its power over him.
He needs to reconcile the confiscation of ev in the 90s.
He has no sense of self awareness in hypocrisy.... probably whh he sa maga hat qanonsense.
-
Irrelevant
Bulba is under the insane belief monpoliues and govt control only apply to ev and his saintly big oil would never abuse its power over him.
He needs to reconcile the confiscation of ev in the 90s.
He has no sense of self awareness in hypocrisy.... probably whh he sa maga hat qanonsense.
I am under no such delusion.
I know that electric cats are inefficient and dangerous, so no replacing gas ones means that you haven't rushed to replace something bad with something much worse. the towns they mine for lithium or lead or whatever go from green paradises to having even the water spoiled.
It's sorta like Final Fantasy 7. They talk about in the Gold Saucer arc how Corel used to be on coal power. Dirty smoggy power, to be sure. Then they talked people into using Mako ( "Hey kids, coal is unclean... wouldn't you rather strip the energy from the planet itself? Doesn't that seem much cleaner?") and everything went south.
Just cuz something seems cleaner doesn't mean it is. Listen when people are trying to tell you things. All of the battery materials are either impractical enough that they couldn't cheaply make (solid state batteries) or require mining of a point that is destructive to the nearby town, or actually pollute the land and water nearby, or deplete massive resources when charging said device.
But you don't care. Oil barons are getting richer as we squeeze the public trying to switch people against their will to EVs. So what's your point? It dtill happens, and happens more when you coerce others to buy cars they wouldn't normally.
-
Right but get this and this is the point im trying to make -
your outrage towards ev is irrational.
All the reasons you are against ev can equally be applied to gas.
You make no sense.
Say it back to me in your own words so i have some sense we are both speaking english.
-
I am under no such delusion.
I literally just showed you how the images you shared of "lithium mines" where actually copper and gold mines.
How does this not make you stop and think that maybe you have the wrong information?
Your also not discussing specific points, but rather waving over them all as "its bad and, LALALALA, you wont change my mind"
Coal mining is LITERALLY strip mining, and it does so using thousands of times more area than lithium mines.
Go ACTUALLY research the topic over pulling meme-ably bad info from facebook.
-
I am under no such delusion.
The Dunning-Kruger is very, very strong in you.
-
don't get him started on parabolas...
or in this case - upside down parabolas.
he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia
-
don't get him started on parabolas...
or in this case - upside down parabolas.
he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia
Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.
-
don't get him started on parabolas...
or in this case - upside down parabolas.
he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia
Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.
Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.
There can only be a universal down if the entire Earth is sunny-side up, like it is in any proper flat Earth.
Coal mining is LITERALLY strip mining, and it does so using thousands of times more area than lithium mines.
No no, coal mining gives you black lung. So it's better for the environment.
-
don't get him started on parabolas...
or in this case - upside down parabolas.
he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia
Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.
Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.
Oh my lord. I don't even know where to begin.
-
don't get him started on parabolas...
or in this case - upside down parabolas.
he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia
Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.
Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.
There can only be a universal down if the entire Earth is sunny-side up, like it is in any proper flat Earth.
Coal mining is LITERALLY strip mining, and it does so using thousands of times more area than lithium mines.
No no, coal mining gives you black lung. So it's better for the environment.
You dumb.
-
don't get him started on parabolas...
or in this case - upside down parabolas.
he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia
Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.
Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.
Oh my lord. I don't even know where to begin.
Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.
Down:
noun
1. Fine, soft, fluffy feathers forming the first plumage of a young bird and underlying the contour feathers in certain adult birds.
2. A covering of soft, short hairs, as on some leaves or fruit.
3. A soft, silky, or feathery substance, such as the first growth of a human beard.
adverb
1. From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
3. Downstairs.
4. In or into a sitting, kneeling, or reclining position.
5. In or into one's stomach.
Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side. Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.
No wonder you get taken in by cultural relativism and the idea there isn't universal morality. And no wonder you get swallowed up by ideas that say down is up, and up is down. If no universal down exists, you cannot say that something is universally wrong. "Well in Limsum society, thet sat killing people is justice and mercy, and raping women is their right. That's just their culture I guess, and we shouldn't judge." (An anagram for Muslim, btw) No, universal means there is a standard by which we can say, "No, this culture is run by an evil sect. Murder and rape are wrong. It is a good thing to forgive people, but this sect has to go."
The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.
-
You, bulmbles, have a universal-down for you flat earth.
We, smart people, have a relative down-to-center.
Dont out your wrong universe rules into our correct one.
-
Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.
Down:
noun
<irrelevant>
adverb
1. From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
<irrelevant>
Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side. Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.
But if you claim there is no universal down, then what do "down", "down and to the side", "to the side", and "up" mean in that last paragraph? If there is no universal down, then there is no "universal sideways" or "universal up", either? Why do you insist that "down" is "toward the south"?
Defining down as "toward the center of the earth" is meaningful only in the region of space where earth's gravity dominates. That is, inside, on the surface of, or near the earth. For the class of things in this region of space, i.e. everything in, on, and near the earth, which includes all humans (except for a handful for a brief time so far, and until the next manned lunar mission). This is universal according to your definitions 2. and 3 for all people on earth, which for the time being is all people.
The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.
Look at your definitions 2. and 3. for "universal" again. Emphasis added in the first quote block for your convenience.
-
don't get him started on parabolas...
or in this case - upside down parabolas.
he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia
Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.
Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.
Oh my lord. I don't even know where to begin.
Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side. Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.
Pro-tip: Learn a little something about the thing you are arguing against.
You are literally saying what a 2nd grader might think - "Hey Mommy, why are people in Australia hanging upside-down?"
I didn't think you could get any more ignorant, but you have exceeded my expectations.
-
don't get him started on parabolas...
or in this case - upside down parabolas.
he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia
Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.
Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.
There can only be a universal down if the entire Earth is sunny-side up, like it is in any proper flat Earth.
Coal mining is LITERALLY strip mining, and it does so using thousands of times more area than lithium mines.
No no, coal mining gives you black lung. So it's better for the environment.
But you said if the Earth were a sphere people in Australia would have to hang like bats. Universal down is what that would require, and absolutely is not part of what we experience or what we say about how gravity works. YOU claimed otherwise, now explain what universal down is and how it works. It ISNT part of a spherical Earth at all, we never claimed it was. YOU tried to use it as a strawman argument, now explain what causes it.
-
Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.
Down:
noun
<irrelevant>
adverb
1. From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
<irrelevant>
Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side. Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.
But if you claim there is no universal down, then what do "down", "down and to the side", "to the side", and "up" mean in that last paragraph? If there is no universal down, then there is no "universal sideways" or "universal up", either? Why do you insist that "down" is "toward the south"?
Defining down as "toward the center of the earth" is meaningful only in the region of space where earth's gravity dominates. That is, inside, on the surface of, or near the earth. For the class of things in this region of space, i.e. everything in, on, and near the earth, which includes all humans (except for a handful for a brief time so far, and until the next manned lunar mission). This is universal according to your definitions 2. and 3 for all people on earth, which for the time being is all people.
The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.
Look at your definitions 2. and 3. for "universal" again. Emphasis added in the first quote block for your convenience.
Big fluffy down is NOT irrelevant. It's how you globalists sleep at night. Think about that. Also, it wasn't MY definition. I got it from the internet.
But you said if the Earth were a sphere people in Australia would have to hang like bats. Universal down is what that would require, and absolutely is not part of what we experience or what we say about how gravity works. YOU claimed otherwise, now explain what universal down is and how it works. It ISNT part of a spherical Earth at all, we never claimed it was. YOU tried to use it as a strawman argument, now explain what causes it.
That wasn't a strawman. Without a universal down, everyone on the equator hangs sideways around a rim, and then oh so gradually but nonetheless, they start towards hanging like bats. That's ridiculous.
Flat Earth asserts that people throughout the Earth live and work upright like decent folk, and there are inner and outer zones that are north and south of the equator. You can only get a truly universal down through this theory, and it's beautiful. It means if I dig straight down, rather than going to China, I either burn up to cinders, or I fall through into space.
-
Correct
Round ball earth does NOT have a universl down.
Therefore equator peiple and astralians dont do the thing you think they do.
-
Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.
Down:
noun
<irrelevant>
adverb
1. From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
<irrelevant>
Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side. Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.
But if you claim there is no universal down, then what do "down", "down and to the side", "to the side", and "up" mean in that last paragraph? If there is no universal down, then there is no "universal sideways" or "universal up", either? Why do you insist that "down" is "toward the south"?
Defining down as "toward the center of the earth" is meaningful only in the region of space where earth's gravity dominates. That is, inside, on the surface of, or near the earth. For the class of things in this region of space, i.e. everything in, on, and near the earth, which includes all humans (except for a handful for a brief time so far, and until the next manned lunar mission). This is universal according to your definitions 2. and 3 for all people on earth, which for the time being is all people.
The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.
Look at your definitions 2. and 3. for "universal" again. Emphasis added in the first quote block for your convenience.
Big fluffy down is NOT irrelevant. It's how you globalists sleep at night. Think about that. Also, it wasn't MY definition. I got it from the internet.
But you said if the Earth were a sphere people in Australia would have to hang like bats. Universal down is what that would require, and absolutely is not part of what we experience or what we say about how gravity works. YOU claimed otherwise, now explain what universal down is and how it works. It ISNT part of a spherical Earth at all, we never claimed it was. YOU tried to use it as a strawman argument, now explain what causes it.
That wasn't a strawman. Without a universal down, everyone on the equator hangs sideways around a rim, and then oh so gradually but nonetheless, they start towards hanging like bats. That's ridiculous.
Flat Earth asserts that people throughout the Earth live and work upright like decent folk, and there are inner and outer zones that are north and south of the equator. You can only get a truly universal down through this theory, and it's beautiful. It means if I dig straight down, rather than going to China, I either burn up to cinders, or I fall through into space.
As I said, WE do not use universal down. I.e. there is a downwards pull to the universe, or a up and down for the universe as a whole. WE demonstrate there is an acceleration due to gravity which makes down a local phenomenon, or towards the center of the mass. There would be no sideways people or upside-down people. You clearly tried to use it saying that people would be hanging upside-down in Australia due to there position on the Earth. It was exactly a STRAWMAN argument.
Now, due you believe there is there a universal down? If so, what causes it? If not, admit and apologize for the strawman argument. I'm not saying concede your FE idiocy, I'm saying concede that there would be no upside-down people hanging from the globe.
-
Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.
Down:
noun
<irrelevant>
adverb
1. From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
<irrelevant>
Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side. Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.
But if you claim there is no universal down, then what do "down", "down and to the side", "to the side", and "up" mean in that last paragraph? If there is no universal down, then there is no "universal sideways" or "universal up", either? Why do you insist that "down" is "toward the south"?
Defining down as "toward the center of the earth" is meaningful only in the region of space where earth's gravity dominates. That is, inside, on the surface of, or near the earth. For the class of things in this region of space, i.e. everything in, on, and near the earth, which includes all humans (except for a handful for a brief time so far, and until the next manned lunar mission). This is universal according to your definitions 2. and 3 for all people on earth, which for the time being is all people.
The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.
Look at your definitions 2. and 3. for "universal" again. Emphasis added in the first quote block for your convenience.
Big fluffy down is NOT irrelevant. It's how you globalists sleep at night. Think about that. Also, it wasn't MY definition. I got it from the internet.
BFD [big fluffy down] is irrelevant. It doesn't exist - can't get more irrelevant than that.
You posted those definitions without attribution and used them to justify your argument. You own them.
But you said if the Earth were a sphere people in Australia would have to hang like bats. Universal down is what that would require, and absolutely is not part of what we experience or what we say about how gravity works. YOU claimed otherwise, now explain what universal down is and how it works. It ISNT part of a spherical Earth at all, we never claimed it was. YOU tried to use it as a strawman argument, now explain what causes it.
That wasn't a strawman.
Yes it was.
Without a universal down, everyone on the equator hangs sideways around a rim, and then oh so gradually but nonetheless, they start towards hanging like bats. That's ridiculous.
Which is why we say there is no universal down. Universal down as you imagine it is your concept, not ours; we say it doesn't exist. That's why this argument is a strawman.
Flat Earth asserts that people throughout the Earth live and work upright like decent folk, and there are inner and outer zones that are north and south of the equator. You can only get a truly universal down through this theory, and it's beautiful. It means if I dig straight down, rather than going to China, I either burn up to cinders, or I fall through into space.
And on a spherical earth where down is toward the center, people anywhere on or near the surface stand upright, anywhere on the globe. If I could dig straight through the earth, I'd burn to cinders by the time I reached earth's core because the core is hot enough to melt iron. If I could somehow dig straight through to the other side and survive the through trip, I'd pop out at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Glub.
For some fun, see https://www.antipodesmap.com/ (https://www.antipodesmap.com/) and enter your location.
-
You seemed to have missed the question I asked before.
Do you complain this much about needing to have seatbelts in your car and headlights and so on?
4. I had to look up what Ultracapacitors were.
https://vlab.amrita.edu/?sub=77&brch=270&sim=1390&cnt=1
Ultracapacitors are made up of two metal plates coated with loosely packed activated carbon which is immersed in electrolyte with positive and negative ions.
Wasn't everyone telling us that carbon is so bad, and we should be cutting down on the amount we use? Yet here we're using it for batteries. Also, the article mentions that these are not really batteries, but the back-up energy systems to help lighten the load of lithium batteries. So anything bad about lithium is still true of this.
If you had to look up what it is, you probably shouldn't start spouting nonsense about it.
They don't want people to BURN carbon. Using it as a material in a supercapacitor is quite different. That doesn't burn it.
The cost is impractical (wikipedia goes on to say that the technology has alot of problems and failures, so paying $100k doesn't guarantee it will work), meaning that this is just a pipedream and you are stuck with the other options, all of which are not eco-friendly.
Or that it is just a new technology.
But you don't seem to understand these either.
They still typically use lithium, but they use a solid electrolyte instead of a liquid or gel.
I never said we don't have a very high amount of evil involved in the oil trade. But any alternative starts with using materials we already have, not scouring the world for ones that force more people into unclean mining conditions.
No, it doesn't.
It involves looking at the cost and benefit of each, to see which is less damaging.
There is no king but King Jesus.
So you only accept really evil tyrants, like the alleged illegitimate son of an evil tyrant that tortured people to show off?
Your faith is tyranny and abhorrent.
If your evil tyrant existed and gave a damn, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
No, a careful reading of the gospel reveals he died BECAUSE of that, and he died so that the world would no longer be governed by lockstep. He died for all our sins. And our biggest sin is statism. Wanting kings to govern us, instead of God (which he won't, meaning anarchy).
A careful, intelligent reading of the gospel, rather than just trying to prop up an abhorrent religion, reveals that his death makes absolutely no sense as portrayed.
Instead, it makes sense in one of 4 ways:
1 - He was actually Satan/the son of Satan. He got people to discard the abhorrent commands of God (at least in part, just look at how many Christians make the excuse that something is the OT so doesn't have to be followed), and sacrificed himself to the evil tyrant God to save humanity from God.
2 - It was all propaganda, where God created a pawn to die to pretend God loves people to con foolish people into thinking that God loves them, rather than treating them as a toy to be messed with as he pleases.
3 - It was all a misunderstanding, and Jesus was just a regular guy, murdered by a bunch of religious nuts.
4 - It is all fantasy. A pathetic fairy tale.
Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.
No, what is absurd is you.
Down is not sideways at the equator, it is down, towards the centre.
There is absolutely nothing absurd about that.
But because you have no rational argument against the RE, you just spout childish garbage like this, appealing to a magical universal down, to try claiming people on the equator are sideways.
And this comment of yours just shows that you understand that is pure garbage, that there is no universal down for a RE, so there are no magical sideways people.
You are effectively starting with the baseless, refuted assumption that Earth is flat and has a magical universal down to try to say that a RE isn't flat.
That is you being absurd.
Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side. Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.
No, regardless of where you are, down is down.
Down being relative doesn't mean down is sideways or up. It is still down.
It is just that down at one location isn't in the same absolute direction as down in another location.
No wonder you get taken in by cultural relativism and the idea there isn't universal morality.
I will much prefer subjective morality of man over the subjective morality of an evil tyrant, which by the way is perfectly fine with rape and slavery.
"Well in Limsum society, thet sat killing people is justice and mercy, and raping women is their right. That's just their culture I guess, and we shouldn't judge."
You mean in Jewish society? Were the Jews were God's chosen people, so when the invaded a town, they got to keep the women for themselves.
Or did you forget about your evil POS being fine with rape?
And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.
Which just shows how badly you fail to understand that point.
The point is that you are appealing to a magical universal down to try and say there is a problem for a RE.
But you cannot justify this magic at all.
That wasn't a strawman. Without a universal down, everyone on the equator hangs sideways around a rim, and then oh so gradually but nonetheless, they start towards hanging like bats. That's ridiculous.
No, that is a strawman.
It is only WITH a universal down that you can say people on the equator are sideways.
Your strawman is ridiculous.
You need a universal down for your argument to work.
-
No, the Jews didn't create foer themselves booty (pardon the expression) rules. In fact, a woman is off-limits to a Jewish male unlwss she makes a commitment to the Jewish community and converts. In fact, they shouldn't even be seeing each other.
You ought to do us a favor and actually read both the Torah and the Quran. Isn't it realy the Jews, indeed. The Jews are guilty of things for sure, but war crimes, and treating other humans as chattel is not among them.
Yes, yes, tell me how it's so much more virtuous to be mining carbon to turn it into nonbiodegradeable batteries that potetially create pollution in landfills vs burning.
No, impractical is impractical. Technology ony works when it is cheap enough to use. Srop the sunk cost and greater fool fallacies. Nobody is buying. It's too expensive now, until it's cheap, not an option. Nobody will pay $100k for a car, just for its battery.
Protip: we already have oil technology. By definition, the technology that doesn't involve raping virgin forests to clear land for mining new materials is by default the most eco-friendly option. The second most eco-friendly option is only mining in barren areas (rocky, snowy, or sandy areas), not forests, swamps, and plains.
That tortured people to show off, you say. Yes, because God is so much more cruel than we humans... oh wait, no. Humans invented crucifixion. Humans also invented every torture method there is. God is not a torturer, nor is he responsible for anything that happens to you. That's like blaming the mother f a dog for its master beating it until it's a killer dofg. The morher is only responsible for its being alive and the fact that it is mortal.
But secularists see life itself as torture, which is why they routiney have pets kiled and people, caiing it's euthanasia.
Meanwhile, this man allowed himself to be tortured at the hands of humans.
A careful, intelligent reading of the gospel, rather than just trying to prop up an abhorrent religion, reveals that his death makes absolutely no sense as portrayed.
Instead, it makes sense in one of 4 ways:
1 - He was actually Satan/the son of Satan. He got people to discard the abhorrent commands of God (at least in part, just look at how many Christians make the excuse that something is the OT so doesn't have to be followed), and sacrificed himself to the evil tyrant God to save humanity from God.
2 - It was all propaganda, where God created a pawn to die to pretend God loves people to con foolish people into thinking that God loves them, rather than treating them as a toy to be messed with as he pleases.
3 - It was all a misunderstanding, and Jesus was just a regular guy, murdered by a bunch of religious nuts.
4 - It is all fantasy. A pathetic fairy tale.
Proving that some atheists are actually Satanists.
A careful reading of the gospel starts with Genesis, then Exodus, skips the law for later, moves to Samuel & Kings, then gradually to the New Testament. This is what a clear reading of the Old Testament yields.
5. God actually is Jesus. The people of ancient Judaism understood that God is a person, and tests us, but is ultimately on our side. Much like the tricks of Cotyote or Loki, but mostly benign. God travels with us, and God loves us, enough even to die for us. Then around Samuel and Kings, the Jews settled in their lands. They forgot that God was a person, and instead idolized teples and sets of laws. They wanted a king to be like other nations, they wanted idols. And so God drove them from their lands to remind them that these things are conditional. But they built an even more monstrous temple. So God came in person. The "God" that seems evil is following centuries of Babylonian revision of the Jews' own texts. Yet they prefer this lie to the truth that is Jesus. This is what I mean that Jews are guilty of alot.
You are correct, there are no sideways people. Because this entire theory is nonsense. It is a godless view of Earth that is intended to belittle and enslave humans, reducing them to tiny specks in a universe that doesn't care, rather than the only place with life known. We humans are pretty damned important, and the idea of heliocentric RE is to mention an Earth unsuitable for life, rather than one perfectly designed for life. The amount of motion alone that the Earth supposedly travels would be enough to shatter our internal organs. Hanging upside-down would give all of us bloodrush. The water of the Earth should lower to the southern hemisphere (not just a majority but all of it), effectively dehydrating everyone in the north. Any of these factors should kill us. If you still see God as a torturer, I can't tell you any good news. But there is alot that even I (among the most bored, depressed, and cynical people alive) can say is a blessing to this life. We're not being tortured.
-
Protip: we already have oil technology.
By your logic, we should have just stuck with wood technology. I mean, we already had it before oil tech.
-
No, the Jews didn't create foer themselves booty (pardon the expression) rules. In fact, a woman is off-limits to a Jewish male unlwss she makes a commitment to the Jewish community and converts. In fact, they shouldn't even be seeing each other.
You ought to do us a favor and actually read both the Torah and the Quran. Isn't it realy the Jews, indeed. The Jews are guilty of things for sure, but war crimes, and treating other humans as chattel is not among them.
How about instead of telling me to do that, you do it yourself?
For example, have you read Numbers 31, where the Jews were ordered to kill every man and every woman that had been with a man but got to keep the women that hadn't been with a man for themselves?
Deuteronomy 20 and 21 likewise discuss female spoils of war.
Deuteronomy 22 describes the punishment for raping a non-betrothed virgin, to marry her and pay her father, and the crime for being raped in a city is to be put to death (both the rapist and the victim).
So you are promoting abhorrent garbage.
No, impractical is impractical.
If humanity took that approach to everything, virtually nothing would ever be made.
We would have discarded electricity as impractical, and never developed anything that depended upon it.
Initially electricity was nothing more than a gimmick with no real practical use. One of the first electric lights needed to be powered by a battery consisting of 2000 cells, which filled a basement. This only lasted long enough to show the principle and wasn't bright enough to illuminate a room.
By all measures it was entirely impractical at that time to use an electric light to illuminate any area.
Yet look at where we are now, using electric lights so often for almost all illumination other than that from the sun.
The same can be said for almost any technology. That initially it was far too impractical to be useful except in incredible rare circumstances; but so much has now become very practical.
That tortured people to show off, you say. Yes
Yes, or as it is put in the Bible, to make his wonders multiply.
But of course, you want to ignore that and pretend the evil POS you worship can do no wrong.
Humans invented crucifixion. Humans also invented every torture method there is. God is not a torturer, nor is he responsible for anything that happens to you.
And who invented humans?
If I made sentient robots knowing they would go and kill a bunch of people, would I be at all responsible for those deaths?
If your nonsense was true, your god created humanity and is responsible for all the harm they have caused.
And as well as that harm, your god is responsible for all natural disasters and illnesses and so on.
Your god is responsible for all suffering, yet you ignore it all, because you are in an abusive relationship with your imagination, where you can't bring yourself to blame the evil POS you worship for anything bad.
Your god not being responsible works for atheists and those of other religions, that do not believe your god created this world or humans.
But secularists see life itself as torture, which is why they routiney have pets kiled and people, caiing it's euthanasia.
No, that would be the religious nuts, at least those that actually believe.
They see life as worthless, and don't care if people die as either they go to a better place or get what they deserve.
The secularists typically see lives as quite valuable.
Meanwhile, this man allowed himself to be tortured at the hands of humans.
So taking the propaganda route I see.
You mean this GOD, went and put on a show to con fools like you into thinking he gave a damn?
Proving that some atheists are actually Satanists.
How? Because I recognise it makes more sense for Jesus to be Satan than God?
That doesn't make me a Satanist, as I still discard it as fictitious BS.
5. God actually is Jesus.
This only makes sense if God is not in control, or if it is propaganda.
The first is effectively saying God is Satan, or a man, sacrificing himself to save us from whatever being is in control.
God travels with us, and God loves us, enough even to die for us.
Again, going with the propaganda route.
Just what was God "saving" us from" himself?
He killed himself so he could choose not to torture people in hell?
He didn't need to kill himself for that.
And he didn't even have the decency to stay dead. Instead he was running around around 1.5 days later, being even more powerful.
Again, it makes no sense.
What does make sense is if it is propaganda to con fools like you into thinking God gives a damn about you as anything more than a plaything.
You are correct, there are no sideways people. Because this entire theory is nonsense.
Your theory is nonsense.
Your theory of some magical universal down for a RE.
In reality, Earth is round and there is no universal down.
It is a godless view of Earth that is intended to belittle and enslave humans
As opposed to your delusional BS, reducing humans to the playing thing of an evil POS.
Just what is enslaving me? I am free.
You are the one enslaved by your evil tyrant.
We humans are pretty damned important
And more pathetic reasons to reject reality. You can't handle not being the centre of the universe, so you cling to a pathetic fantasy.
the idea of heliocentric RE is to mention an Earth unsuitable for life
Why?
This Earth we live on is quite suitable for life.
rather than one perfectly designed for life.
The universe we live in is not one perfectly designed for life, at least not human life.
Even if we cling to your fantasy of a FE.
Large portions of this world are water, which humans can't live on. Large regions of the land are inhospitable due to heat or cold.
People who have made games have made worlds vastly better than this. Your god is truly pathetic if this was the best it could come up with.
The amount of motion alone that the Earth supposedly travels would be enough to shatter our internal organs.
How?
Our internal organs would be destroyed by forces being transmitted through them. That doesn't occur from the motion of Earth.
Again, you are spouting garbage to pretend there is a problem when there is none.
Stop just spouting such utter garbage and instead try to justify it.
Hanging upside-down would give all of us bloodrush.
Good thing people can stand upright all over the globe, and they don't need to hang upside down.
Again, you are taking your fantasy of some magical universal down to attack a model where it simply doesn't exist.
Your fantasy has no bearing on reality.
The water of the Earth should lower to the southern hemisphere
Why?
Again, you are using the same BS fantasy.
Lower is towards the centre, not towards the south.
Why should all the water move to the southern hemisphere? Why not any other point on Earth? Why not towards the centre?
Any of these factors should kill us.
And they are all just a pathetic fantasy of yours, not reality.
If you still see God as a torturer, I can't tell you any good news. But there is alot that even I (among the most bored, depressed, and cynical people alive) can say is a blessing to this life. We're not being tortured.
I don't believe in your god. I don't think it exists, so I don't think it is torturing me.
But in the fairy tale of your cult, your god is an evil tyrant that tortures people and torments people to show off.
It is certainly not a good being and not worthy of worship, and no decent human being would worship it except out of ignorance, cowardice, brainwashing or stupidity.
-
Yes, yes, tell me how it's so much more virtuous to be mining carbon to turn it into nonbiodegradeable batteries that potetially create pollution in landfills vs burning.
No, impractical is impractical. Technology ony works when it is cheap enough to use. Srop the sunk cost and greater fool fallacies. Nobody is buying. It's too expensive now, until it's cheap, not an option. Nobody will pay $100k for a car, just for its battery.
Literally millions of BEV's are sold every year. And the increase in new sales will probably overtake ICE cars before the 2030's.
Why? Because everything you believe about BEV's are wrong.
You dont mine carbon to make batteries. You mine lithium, which is a one time thing for a car, vs pumping oil, which has to happen consistently to keep an ICE car alive.
And BEV are already beating ICE on price of ownership, thats one of the reasons why Tesla cant make cars fast enough for the demand and Ford is busy selling off huge parts of the old ICE business.
-
How about instead of telling me to do that, you do it yourself? (Cites passages)
So you are promoting abhorrent garbage.
That tortured people to show off, you say. Yes
Yes, or as it is put in the Bible, to make his wonders multiply.
Humans invented crucifixion. Humans also invented every torture method there is. God is not a torturer, nor is he responsible for anything that happens to you.
And who invented humans?
What is the very first myth about humans? Oh right, it's about how they choice to have free will. "Knowing good and evil." Free will.
If your nonsense was true, your god created humanity and is responsible for all the harm they have caused.
But secularists see life itself as torture, which is why they routiney have pets kiled and people, caiing it's euthanasia.
No, that would be the religious nuts, at least those that actually believe.
They see life as worthless, and don't care if people die as either they go to a better place or get what they deserve.
The secularists typically see lives as quite valuable.
Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_Coaster
No Christian would want this ride. It's developed in countries where "avoiding pain" is more sacred than life. Now, it is a hypothetical coaster, but only nihilistic atheism treats this as a good idea.
Proving that some atheists are actually Satanists.
How? Because I recognise it makes more sense for Jesus to be Satan than God?
That doesn't make me a Satanist, as I still discard it as fictitious BS.
Satan means accuser/adversary. Satanists are people who accuse God. I think that sums you up, does it not?
Just what is enslaving me? I am free.
You are the one enslaved by your evil tyrant.
You are a slave of other people. Tomorrow, some thug could point a gun at your head, and you would have to serve him our of fear. No belief in afterlife = terror and a desire to control others.
We humans are pretty damned important
And more pathetic reasons to reject reality. You can't handle not being the centre of the universe, so you cling to a pathetic fantasy.
See, this is what things look like at your end, you tell me how atheists value life so much, and when I tell you human life is important, you say I'm in a fantasy. Everything you said before was false.
the idea of heliocentric RE is to mention an Earth unsuitable for life
Why?
This Earth we live on is quite suitable for life.
Exactly. But nothing about a rapidly spinning heliocentric Earth with upside-down gravity in the south is conducive to life.
rather than one perfectly designed for life.
The universe we live in is not one perfectly designed for life, at least not human life.
You just said half a paragraph before that it was quite hospitable. Which is it?!?
The Earth has a number of conditions suited for life. Read up on the Goldilocks theory. Earth is "just right" not too close or too far from the sun, having a moon of the right size to block small asteroids, having a gas giant with high gravity to absorb most of the really threatening ones, all of this has given the Earth time to nurture life. Factor after factor why life exists, yet you tell me the universe isn't designed for life. But it appears to have gone out of its way to make it happen on one planet.
The amount of motion alone that the Earth supposedly travels would be enough to shatter our internal organs.
How?
Our internal organs would be destroyed by forces being transmitted through them. That doesn't occur from the motion of Earth.
So it doesn't occur from rotating 1000+ mph, orbiting 66000 mph, and trailing the sun at high speed around the galaxy? Meanwhile, a theme park ride goes only maybe 50 mph, and ppl have been known to get injured from leaning wrong. Even with rpms being different, you're doing alot of funny things with numbers here.
Hanging upside-down would give all of us bloodrush.
Good thing people can stand upright all over the globe, and they don't need to hang upside down.
Bloodrush isn't about standing upright. It's about solids and liquids not having the same pressure. In a plane, you can't take liquids in certain containers as they explode. This is because liquids and solids don't react uniformly to changes in pressure. They do warn or altitude sickness, but there should be an equatorial sickness, for people who constantly transition from north to middle to south. I was south of the equator, no change in blood polarity.
The water of the Earth should lower to the southern hemisphere
Why?
Again, you are using the same BS fantasy.
Lower is towards the centre, not towards the south.
If you still see God as a torturer, I can't tell you any good news. But there is alot that even I (among the most bored, depressed, and cynical people alive) can say is a blessing to this life. We're not being tortured.
I don't believe in your god. I don't think it exists, so I don't think it is torturing me.
But in the fairy tale of your cult, your god is an evil tyrant that tortures people and torments people to show off.
Wow, uhhhh so, you declare at the one hand that you don't believe in this God while at theother you arbitrarily declare that he torments people to show off.
"There's this man down the street that nobody has seen, but I tell you he rapes little kittens for fun." Either we are to believe in this man and your accusations of him, or are to believe that since nobody has seen seen him, you made him up. This is a "have your cake and eat it too" paradox, you can't declare someone doesn't exist, and simultaneously accuse him. So which is it? Commit to telling us God isn't real, in which case he's no business of yours, or commit to hating God in which case you admit he exists. Make a choice.
Either you are an Misotheist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism
Or you are an Atheist.
Water has a distinct behavior, rising under high pressure only to seep downward. Water extends from the highest point to the lowest point. But water isn't all in any place, including the center. We can clearly visit Brazil and stand right on the equator, walk up and down, and perceive that no adjustments are made for the water by its coasts. There is water everywhere from above near France to around Australia. It doesn't "gravitate" anywhere. In fact, if we are to say water is pushed down, what makes more sense? Water on the sides of a curved surface, pushed towards a center? Or water in a basin?
You know the answer, you're lying to yourself and us. Just like you're lying when you call God a torturer and then with the other hand deny he exists.
Get your facts straight.
-
try honestly answer - what's below the basin?
-
Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.
Do Not Resuscitate
-
Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.
Do Not Resuscitate
Literally the first question asked of me at my recent hospital stay. Do you have a DNR? This was a hospital with a big cross on the wall with Baptist in the name. I'm in the South in the US too, that hospital was pretty much, not secular.
-
try honestly answer - what's below the basin?
The underside of the Earth. Ask a stupid question...
The basin holds in rocks, metals, water, lava, and all manner of life.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1026534392685940847/Basin.png)
We would assume outer space is below the Earth, correct?
But you can't honestly prove that, can you? For all any of us know, the Earth is suspended in a white void, and the "stars" are pinpricks showing this void. We can't prove that anything NASA tells us is the case is true, since space shuttles aren't exactly as a common as toasters. Nor do most of us have our own observatories.
I can honestly say (because unlike you, I've been honest) that I do not know what is below the basin.
-
Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.
Do Not Resuscitate
Literally the first question asked of me at my recent hospital stay. Do you have a DNR? This was a hospital with a big cross on the wall with Baptist in the name. I'm in the South in the US too, that hospital was pretty much, not secular.
Bullcrap, bullcrap, and again I say bullcrap. DNR is a patient-advised choice. Not to do with the hospital or its religious leanings.
I myself am technically DNR, because I know that otherwise they would do extraordinary measures to keep me alive long after my natural lifespan. I believe that living things are created by God and we shouldn't either put down animals via lethal injection nor keep people alive for twenty years after they wanted to die naturally.
We shouldn't intervene to put pets down, and we shouldn't intervene to keep people alive. Both of these are playing God.
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/pricey-technology-keeping-people-alive-dont-want-live/
God is not torturing people. We are.
-
playing God?
i didn't realize you could transcend time and space and create matter from nothing.
oh
you mean just pracitcing basic medicine?
yaaa. tha''s not playing God.
-
...and we shouldn't intervene to keep people alive.
DNR=Pulling the plug=Assisted Suicide
-
Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.
Do Not Resuscitate
Literally the first question asked of me at my recent hospital stay. Do you have a DNR? This was a hospital with a big cross on the wall with Baptist in the name. I'm in the South in the US too, that hospital was pretty much, not secular.
Bullcrap, bullcrap, and again I say bullcrap. DNR is a patient-advised choice. Not to do with the hospital or its religious leanings.
I myself am technically DNR, because I know that otherwise they would do extraordinary measures to keep me alive long after my natural lifespan. I believe that living things are created by God and we shouldn't either put down animals via lethal injection nor keep people alive for twenty years after they wanted to die naturally.
We shouldn't intervene to put pets down, and we shouldn't intervene to keep people alive. Both of these are playing God.
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/pricey-technology-keeping-people-alive-dont-want-live/
God is not torturing people. We are.
So, if I am dying and you could easily save me but choose not to, is it not wrong in God's eyes? Let's expand on this, if we choose to stop feeding prisoners, I'm sure God would be OK with that. Oh, let's let's the suicidal teenager have a gun too.
I'm not sure what church you go to, but mine would very much try to discourage a DNR because it is very close to suicide.
-
...and we shouldn't intervene to keep people alive.
DNR=Pulling the plug=Assisted Suicide
DNR does not mean pulling the plug or assisted suicide. DNR is DO NOT RESUSCITATE. DNRs in most cases are done by people with terminal illnesses. Some people get them that in the event of their death or dying, whenever that occurs, they don't want life saving steps to be taken. That's not assisted suicide.
Pulling the plug refers to removing life support machines that are keeping the person alive. Someone who is brain dead, can be kept "alive" via machines. Pulling the plug isn't assisted suicide.
Assisted suicide, is when you get help to have fun.
-
...and we shouldn't intervene to keep people alive.
DNR=Pulling the plug=Assisted Suicide
DNR does not mean pulling the plug or assisted suicide. DNR is DO NOT RESUSCITATE. DNRs in most cases are done by people with terminal illnesses. Some people get them that in the event of their death or dying, whenever that occurs, they don't want life saving steps to be taken. That's not assisted suicide.
Pulling the plug refers to removing life support machines that are keeping the person alive. Someone who is brain dead, can be kept "alive" via machines. Pulling the plug isn't assisted suicide.
Assisted suicide, is when you get help to have fun.
It depends on how you look at it.
-
And more typical religious deflection.
What is the very first myth about humans?
Do you mean in the Bible?
That would be about God creating them with no knowledge of good and evil, lying to them and then the serpent coming and telling them the truth, so they become like God, knowing good from evil, and then God using what he already knew they would do and making them suffer because of it.
Now care to answer the question?
If I create sentient robots knowing they are quite likely going to kill people, should I be held responsible at all?
And what about all the "natural" things which cause harm, which are not from people? Why shouldn't your god be held accountable for that if it made the world with all those horrible things?
Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.
No Christian would want this ride.
Why wouldn't Christians want it?
Because they don't actually believe.
Instead they fear death so much they need to invent a fantasy to cling to to pretend it will all be okay, while not even being able to convince themselves it is real.
Because of this their views regarding life are so contradictory.
They want people with horrible diseases that are doing basically nothing other than suffering to continue suffering rather than being able to die peacefully; while allegedly believing in an afterlife were people will go and not suffer.
If they actually believed in the BS they were pedalling, they would believe that allowing people to end their own lives is good as it means they move onto the afterlife.
Satan means accuser/adversary. Satanists are people who accuse God. I think that sums you up, does it not?
And more BS of inventing fake meanings.
Satanists are those who worship Satan or who base their beliefs upon Satan.
It is not simply those that recognise your god is an evil fictitious POS.
You are a slave of other people.
No I'm not.
Tomorrow, some thug could point a gun at your head, and you would have to serve him our of fear.
No, technically I wouldn't, and the same happens with Christians, who would be scared of death and still "serve".
But I see you entirely ignore the idea that you are a slave to an evil tyrant.
See, this is what things look like at your end, you tell me how atheists value life so much, and when I tell you human life is important, you say I'm in a fantasy.
No, it just shows your lack of comprehension.
I value human life, but I see that in the grand scheme of the universe, we are not important.
Understand the difference?
Conversely, you think humanity is so important you need to pretend the universe is tiny.
Why?
This Earth we live on is quite suitable for life.
Exactly.
Glad you fully accept the RE is quite capable of supporting life and your prior claim was pure BS.
You just said half a paragraph before that it was quite hospitable. Which is it?!?
Both.
You are trying to set up a false dichotomy.
This planet is suitable, not perfectly designed.
Suitable means it will work. Perfectly designed means it cannot be improved.
There are plenty of ways to improve this planet if you were an omnipotent entity.
So it isn't perfectly designed. Instead it is merely a planet which life exists on.
Factor after factor why life exists, yet you tell me the universe isn't designed for life. But it appears to have gone out of its way to make it happen on one planet.
Sure, many factors.
We exist in the goldilocks zone, which goes most of the way to Venus and includes Mars.
Not that special when you have 8 planets, 7 of which we can't live on.
Sure we have a moon which can stop some asteroids. But if the universe was designed for life, why bother with asteroids? What purpose are they serving?
Even with the goldilocks zone, why is that needed?
If this universe was designed for life, why bother with any of it?
Why have the ability to live dependent upon distance to the sun?
Why not just not have asteroids?
You are basically describing how the universe is not designed for life, and Earth manages to find itself in a small pocket in which life can survive.
So it doesn't occur from rotating 1000+ mph, orbiting 66000 mph, and trailing the sun at high speed around the galaxy?
No. Why would it?
Again, instead of simply asserting pure BS, try justifying it.
Why should it occur from the ~1 revolution per day rotation of Earth, or the even slower 1 revolution per year orbit around the sun, or the even slower 1 revolution per some several hundred thousand years from the sun's orbit around the milky way?
Meanwhile, a theme park ride goes only maybe 50 mph, and ppl have been known to get injured from leaning wrong.
And planes go at over 900 km/hr, without injury.
Again, you don't get hurt by speed.
You are just appealing to big numbers to pretend there is a problem.
If you want to present it honestly, focus on the acceleration.
For the rotation of Earth, that is 0.03 m/s^2, basically nothing. So small you wont notice it unless you are using quite precise equipment.
Not the organ crushing BS you make it out to be.
And for the orbits, as it is based upon gravity, it is only the tidal forces that are transmitted across the body, so they are insignificant as well.
Even with rpms being different, you're doing alot of funny things with numbers here.
No, that would be you. Using large numbers to make it seem so horrible, while ignoring the fact that those numbers alone are meaningless, and don't support your BS.
Bloodrush isn't about standing upright.
So why keep on spouting BS about people hanging upside down.
You certainly seem to act like it is?
but there should be an equatorial sickness
Why?
Again, you are spouting pure BS to pretend there is a problem, with no justification at all.
What you are stating has nothing to do with blood rushing to the head, but notice how it is appealing to pressure.
If you go from one region with 1 air pressure, to another region with effectively the same air pressure, why should you get some kind of sickness?
Again, stop spouting BS, start trying to justify it.
Wow, uhhhh so, you declare at the one hand that you don't believe in this God while at theother you arbitrarily declare that he torments people to show off.
I don't believe your god exists in reality. But I can recognise the fictional character is abhorrent and torments people in the fantasy of the Bible.
If you would like another comparison, it is like discussing Emperor Palpatine, or Voldemort.
We know they are fictional characters, but can still discuss their actions in their fictional universe.
You don't need to believe that Palpatine or Voldemort exist in reality to discuss them.
-
Water has a distinct behavior, rising under high pressure only to seep downward.
Water has the behaviour of trying to establish a surface where there is no change in energy upon moving over the surface.
That is that water will not lose energy by moving from one point on the surface to another.
That doesn't mean it will magically all flow to the southern hemisphere.
There is water everywhere from above near France to around Australia. It doesn't "gravitate" anywhere.
It certainly seems to gravitate down towards Earth.
In fact, if we are to say water is pushed down, what makes more sense? Water on the sides of a curved surface, pushed towards a center? Or water in a basin?
This raises the question of what is pushing it down?
You need something to do that.
So if you have a very large globe, attracting the water by gravity, it makes sense.
But for the basin, you don't have that, so the question is where is this basin? Is it near a quite large globe, with the water trying to go to the globe and the basin getting in the way.
You know the answer, you're lying to yourself and us.
You are the one lying here.
You have shown that you know you are spouting BS, with things like your comments regarding sidereal days.
You just hate the RE, probably because you can't handle reality.
I myself am technically DNR, because I know that otherwise they would do extraordinary measures to keep me alive long after my natural lifespan. I believe that living things are created by God and we shouldn't either put down animals via lethal injection nor keep people alive for twenty years after they wanted to die naturally.
In which case you should hate hospitals and doctors entirely.
After all, they serve to interfere with the natural order, doing things like performing surgeries to keep people alive or improve their standard of living, and prescribing medication to stop preventable illnesses from killing people or making them suffer.
But I bet like so many people you are happy to take medication to make you better and keep you alive.
God is not torturing people. We are.
Because God doesn't exist.
But in the fantasy of the Bible, God certainly tortures people.
Pulling the plug refers to removing life support machines that are keeping the person alive. Someone who is brain dead, can be kept "alive" via machines. Pulling the plug isn't assisted suicide.
I would say that is quite debatable.
The person is alive, and the person pulling the plug is carrying out an action which results in that person no longer being alive.
They died with the assistance of the person pulling the plug.
-
playing God?
i didn't realize you could transcend time and space and create matter from nothing.
oh
you mean just pracitcing basic medicine?
yaaa. tha''s not playing God.
So congrats, I apparently even have to define a term for you.
https://short-facts.com/what-does-the-phrase-playing-god-means/
If someone plays God, they behave as if they have the right to make the most important decisions, especially relating to the creation or ending of life. They accused the doctors of playing God.
We as humans, do not have the right over the lives of our fellow living things. In the one case, we are talking about murder by another name, in the other, we are talking about a gross defiance of the sanctity of life.
Doctors believe not in God and the sanctity of life, nor in the Tao and the natural order, but in a secular concept of "first, do no harm." That's nice, doc, but if you have no moral guideline to determine what harm is, both torture and euthanasia are on the table. If there is nothing medicine can do to improve quality ( not quantity) of life, you have a responsibility to send them home. But what this is really about is not any notion of mercy or kindness but taking large inheritances. This man has the money to pay to get expensive treatments so "of course" they need to be treated.
Away from the city, you stop hearing noise about distant wars, famines, plagues, and you figure out what God actually has control over. Weather and natural disasters, the movement of the stars, the creation of life, and natural death. Natural death sometimes comes as much as forty years before the death of someone in the medical world. They live their time, and when it's time to go, they're ready. Yes, the occasional storm or earthquake wipes people out, but it has more too do with living near a fault line or too close to the ocean (a view isn't worth dying over, dumbasses). Yes, the rare meteor does land on a town and smash it up.
Living in populated areas, disease does sometimes spread through unsanitary conditions (typhoid, I think was created through alot of shit in the water). Not God's fault. Nor does God cause war. And more famine is created by human mismanagement than by blights. Even blights are caused by things like extreme monoculture (bananas for instance, are cloned through repeated grafts). Even things that seem to be God are actually rooted to unsanitary sex practices. If you have gay sex, you need to stay away from the butt. These are things we humans blame God for, but God for the most part deals in humanity, not life and death.
Whatever you think the Bible says, most of the first part is written by a group of tribal Jews. They literally at one point talk about bashing people's heads against a stone. This is an Iron Age culture. They aren't totally there yet. But the teachings they give got us to modern thinking. There is a clear progression (with slip-ups) from extremely violent depiction of God to a very peaceful depiction when you read Genesis to the Letters (then you read Revelation, and it sounds like something written by someone living well before the Stone Age, which is why I reject Revelation). That we modern people have the moral standards to reject the Bible means we have learned what decent morals are like.
But the Bible is a book of moral history. If you don't learn history, you're doomed to repeat it. Likewise, our modern life is already okay sacrificing children to Molech. It's okay with torturing people for two straight years over a "disease" where medicine admits they have never found an isolation of the disease. It's okay with shunning people or refusing to give painkillers because they weren't vaxxed. We're starting to repeat the madness that led to the Bible having been written in the first place.
Do you mean in the Bible?
That would be about God creating them with no knowledge of good and evil, lying to them and then the serpent coming and telling them the truth, so they become like God, knowing good from evil, and then God using what he already knew they would do and making them suffer because of it.
That's not what happened.
So, let's review:
1. God makes this tree in the center of the Garden. Where they would walk by it every day.
2. God doesn't guard it.
3. God doesn't even make it out of reach.
4. If that weren't enough, God makes it pleasing to the eye and desired for making one wise.
5. If that still weren't enough, both rhe snake and the woman talk Adam into it.
This is a convoluted way of saying that God wanted to give humans free will, but free will can only be taken, not given.
Everything that happened thereafter is akin to a parent acting super-angry for a thing that was planned (I have a book by Jim Butcher called The Aeronaut's Windlass, where a mother wants her daughter to join a group, and spends much of her life "preventing" it).
And that is life, no matter how safe you're being, safety is trying to live in the Garden again. But we can't. Life is messy and dangerous. I'm certain God would say exactly this if we asked.
(http://www.sandraandwoo.com/gaia/comics/2015-10-16-breaking-all-barriers-113.jpg)
Now, moving on.
-
Wow, uhhhh so, you declare at the one hand that you don't believe in this God while at theother you arbitrarily declare that he torments people to show off.
I don't believe your god exists in reality. But I can recognise the fictional character is abhorrent and torments people in the fantasy of the Bible.
If you would like another comparison, it is like discussing Emperor Palpatine, or Voldemort.
We know they are fictional characters, but can still discuss their actions in their fictional universe.
You don't need to believe that Palpatine or Voldemort exist in reality to discuss them.
See heres the nonses with your (bulmbles) inability to put in contwxt the discussion of universal d9wn and missapplication.
Saying IF god exists then you need to reconcile issue of xyz
If flat earth exists you need to reconcile zyx
If round earth exists you need to rec9ncile abc
But you cant apply flat earth to round earth
And you cant apply buddhist theologiy to judeochristian
But you CAN apply real world physics to the model of discussion.
That is where you fail continuously.
-
It certainly seems to gravitate down towards Earth.
Does it really? Look at your own globe, and tell me where water "gravitates".
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2185/3884267810_743c2101cd_b.jpg)
Is all the water in the center? No. Is it all north? No. Is it all south? No. East? West? No. And no.
(https://www.hdwallpaper.nu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/75687ef560864a88fa0e4b9bbf46b044.jpg)
Pwrhaps this map shows what I mean better. You can see from this that the land and sea appears randomly. There is no pull towards either the poles or the equator, just some generic toward the earth. This is basically saying "it stays in place, because magic... ummm I mean 'gravity. '" That's great and all, but that doesn't really tell us why we can't test this behavior with any natural object. We can suppose objects fall due to gravity (wrong phenomenon, but whatever) but yet cannot see a single instance of this same gravity making sure that water sticks to round objects. Except on your imaginary globe.
Meanwhile, in a flat Earth with universal down, water stays in the basin because down is below.
If gravity really was in action and pulled objects toward the center, then if you lived in Brazil, and tossed a glass model over the equator, you'd expect since the equator is the widest part of the Earth, for it to have some kind of trouble crossing the equator. Nope, it sails across the equator just like it sails across political borders, another thing drawn in maps that doesn't actually exist. It lands on the other side having had norhing to do with any curvature and everything to do with how strong or weak the thrower is. If I toss a metal object near the magnetic North Pole of Earth, I would imagine the same couldn't be said.
-
It certainly seems to gravitate down towards Earth.
Does it really? Look at your own globe, and tell me where water "gravitates".
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2185/3884267810_743c2101cd_b.jpg)
Is all the water in the center? No. Is it all north? No. Is it all south? No. East? West? No. And no.
(https://www.hdwallpaper.nu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/75687ef560864a88fa0e4b9bbf46b044.jpg)
Pwrhaps this map shows what I mean better. You can see from this that the land and sea appears randomly. There is no pull towards either the poles or the equator, just some generic toward the earth. This is basically saying "it stays in place, because magic... ummm I mean 'gravity. '" That's great and all, but that doesn't really tell us why we can't test this behavior with any natural object. We can suppose objects fall due to gravity (wrong phenomenon, but whatever) but yet cannot see a single instance of this same gravity making sure that water sticks to round objects. Except on your imaginary globe.
Meanwhile, in a flat Earth with universal down, water stays in the basin because down is below.
If gravity really was in action and pulled objects toward the center, then if you lived in Brazil, and tossed a glass model over the equator, you'd expect since the equator is the widest part of the Earth, for it to have some kind of trouble crossing the equator. Nope, it sails across the equator just like it sails across political borders, another thing drawn in maps that doesn't actually exist. It lands on the other side having had norhing to do with any curvature and everything to do with how strong or weak the thrower is. If I toss a metal object near the magnetic North Pole of Earth, I would imagine the same couldn't be said.
You are an idiot. None of that makes any sense at all. Either you are intentionally being a moron or you have a complete misunderstanding of geometry in 3 dimensions. Take time to learn things and stop with the strawman shit. Aka "If your model was right, then this thing that would happen".
Gravity, learn about it and stop misrepresenting it.
Geometry, I am not sure any amount of study can fix you. You may have Aphantasia.
-
Faltearther using Mercator
Yes
He is an idiot
-
If gravity really was in action and pulled objects toward the center,
You mean like how a hanging spring scale works in accordance with Hooke’s law?
Why does a spring in a hanging spring scale elongated when a mass is placed on bottom of the spring?
A spring scale, spring balance or newton meter is a type of mechanical force gauge or weighing scale. It consists of a spring fixed at one end with a hook to attach an object at the other. It works in accordance with Hooke's Law, which states that the force needed to extend or compress a spring by some distance scales linearly with respect to that distance. Therefore, the scale markings on the spring balance are equally spaced.
A hanging spring scale works because of gravity.
-
So, if I am dying and you could easily save me but choose not to, is it not wrong in God's eyes? Let's expand on this, if we choose to stop feeding prisoners, I'm sure God would be OK with that. Oh, let's let's the suicidal teenager have a gun too.
I'm not sure what church you go to, but mine would very much try to discourage a DNR because it is very close to suicide.
Let's use two scenarios of dying. For these purposes, I am assuming you are the opposite sex, and very attractive. And that we are dating.
1. You have come to my house by ladder, trying to sneak a talk with me so other people in the house wouldn't find out. The wind shifts the ladder. Will I grab the ladder and/or you to save you from falling and breaking your neck? Damned right I will. The only thing stopping me here is if I don't react in time.
2. Suppose you have the bad kind of cancer. You know, two weeks to actually live normally, then things get very very painful, and then you die. There is no cure.
(a) Now, I can either have a normal sense that things are not going to get better on this front, and devote myself wholly to make those two weeks the best ever. I ignore the doctors who say that you should stay at the hospital because they can make you live longer, I take you home. I get you a wig, make you up, and take you on dates, sightseeing the entire world. By the end of the two weeks, you are incredibly tired from seeing and doing everything. In fact, you are so tired, you don't even feel any pain. You simply go to sleep one day and don't wake up.
(b) Or I can "trust the science" and allow the doctors to keep you alive not two weeks but ten years. You are on respirators and feeding tubes. I have supposedly "saved your life." But actually, your quality of life just went to hell. After two weeks, the pain starts. They keep you on life support. They give you pain medicine, but you develop a tolerance, so you are in constant agony. They poke, they prod, they zap you with radiation, they give you chemicals that make you puke and make your hair fall out (https://time.com/3968918/when-chemotherapy-does-more-harm-than-good/). What kind of quality of life is this?!? All the time, you are in constant torment, because instead of giving you a dignified death, I have sentenced you to pain just to stay alive.
Any human know instinctively which is actually saving their life. That is, until they are brainwashed by the same sort of insane secularism that tells them that the sun they see moving around the sky is not moving around the sky but that we are moving around it.
-
but if you have no moral guideline to determine what harm is
As opposed to you who uses the whims of an evil tyrant?
The vast majority of Christians have nothing other than themselves and their upbringing and cherry pick which parts of the Bible to claim should be a moral guideline and what parts to just ignore.
If there is nothing medicine can do to improve quality ( not quantity) of life, you have a responsibility to send them home. But what this is really about is not any notion of mercy or kindness
No, that is entirely what it is meant to be about.
If someone is suffering with no chance of recovery it is cruel to force them to continue to live and suffer.
Where is the sanctity in that?
It appears that a lot of theists like you only give a damn about the quantity of life, and have no concern for the quality of life.
We also see this with their opposition to abortion, while also opposing any form of support for the child once it is born.
And again, why?
Why should you consider life so important?
If when someone dies they go to an afterlife, where they either get a much better condition or get what they "deserve", why should it be so important to keep them suffering in this life?
It makes no sense.
Away from the city, you stop hearing noise about distant wars, famines, plagues, and you figure out what God actually has control over.
Absolutely nothing, as it doesn't exist?
Not God's fault.
So even though you claim God has control over it, and is making all these deaths happen, you then just dismiss it as "not God's fault".
Truly pathetic.
Again, you are in an abusive relationship with your imagination, where your imaginary fiend can do no wrong in your eyes.
And more famine is created by human
And in your fantasy your god could prevent all famine, or have just created humans without the need to eat.
But in your fantasy, God created humans to suffer.
And remember, in your fantasy, God created humans, knowing what they would do, so your god is still to blame.
Even things that seem to be God are actually rooted to unsanitary sex practices.
Unsanitary sex practices doesn't magically create diseases/pathogens.
They have to exist first to then be transmitted.
So your god is still to blame.
What you are doing now is like saying it isn't the person who should be responsible for murder, it is the bullet that the person fired.
Whatever you think the Bible says, most of the first part is written by a group of tribal Jews.
That's right, it wasn't divinely inspired at all.
It is a bunch of crap written by primitive men to control fools.
We're starting to repeat the madness that led to the Bible having been written in the first place.
Quite the opposite.
We are starting to have people abandon reason and cling to the Bible and use it to promote so much evil.
That's not what happened.
It is a fairly quick summary.
If you want the full review fine:
1. God creates Adam and Eve without any knowledge of good and evil. They have no idea what is right and what is wrong.
2. God makes this tree in the center of the Garden. Where they would walk by it every day.
3. God doesn't guard it.
4. God doesn't even make it out of reach.
5. If that weren't enough, God makes it pleasing to the eye.
6. But God tells Adam and Eve that they day they eat it (or even touch it) they will die.
7. The God sits back and watches the following unfold, doing nothing about it.
8. The serpent comes along and questions Eve, revealing God's lie, saying that they wont die as God falsely claimed and instead they would become like God, knowing good and evil.
9. This lead to Eve desiring the fruit to become wise.
10. This lead to Eve eating it and giving some to Adam.
11. Then God comes in and punishes them for doing something they couldn't possibly know was wrong.
If you would like a comparison, this would be like putting a bowl of candy out in front of baby, and telling it that if it eats it it will die, then sitting back and watching as an elder sibling comes in and convinces the baby to have some candy, and then you throwing the baby out to the curb.
They are not the actions of a good being. They are the actions of an evil POS.
This is a convoluted way of saying that God wanted to give humans free will, but free will can only be taken, not given.
If free will can only be taken, then it would be impossible to have, as they would need to have it to take it.
That would be a demonstration of free will. But free will does not require defiance.
And that is life, no matter how safe you're being, safety is trying to live in the Garden again. But we can't. Life is messy and dangerous. I'm certain God would say exactly this if we asked.
You mean come up with a pathetic excuse for how horrible it is?
Do you think Heaven has the same issues and is just as bad as reality? Or do you think you don't have free will in heaven?
You don't need so many natural disasters and diseases to have free will.
And actions of one human against another violated the victims free will. So that excuse doesn't hold either.
The only suffering that should be required due to free will is the suffering that is self inflicted.
For example, if you stick your hand in a fire and get it burnt.
If someone else grabs and forces your hand into a fire, then your free will has been violated and the evil POS you worship doesn't give a damn.
If you get a disease entirely beyond your control, then your free will has been violated by the creation of this evil POS causing unnecessary suffering.
The evil POS you worship is not good. Stop pretending it is.
-
Does it really? Look at your own globe, and tell me where water "gravitates".
Towards the centre, getting stopped by the ground, causing it to form a level surface, with higher bits of ground poking out above it.
Remember, this is a 3D object. Not 2D. You are just seeing one view of it.
There is no pull towards either the poles or the equator, just some generic toward the earth.
You mean towards the mass, exactly as you would expect due to gravity.
Why should there be a magical pull towards either pole or the equator?
This is basically saying "it stays in place, because magic.
No, that would be the FEers with their magic universal down for no reason at all, and with no accounting for why it varies.
For the RE, with actual science, we just use a fundamental force of nature, where the directionality comes from the directionality of the mass.
Gravity causes mass to attract each other, so the water is attracted to the large mass of Earth.
That's great and all, but that doesn't really tell us why we can't test this behavior with any natural object.
Except we can and have.
You not liking that fact will not change that fact.
You intentionally trying to misrepresent it will not change that fact.
yet cannot see a single instance of this same gravity making sure that water sticks to round objects.
Except in reality, where we observe it on Earth.
Like I have told you before, if you want to see that, you need to perform your test in free fall outside the Roche limit of any other significant body.
That means you can't do it on Earth.
Meanwhile, in a flat Earth with universal down, water stays in the basin because down is below.
Yes, in FE magic land, down is down, for no reason at all.
If gravity really was in action and pulled objects toward the center, then if you lived in Brazil, and tossed a glass model over the equator, you'd expect since the equator is the widest part of the Earth, for it to have some kind of trouble crossing the equator.
You sure do love your dishonest BS don't you?
There is no reason for it to have difficulty crossing the equator.
If you think it should clearly explain why, including ensuring you account for all the forces involved. (And remember, because the equator is further from the centre, that means the gravitational acceleration is weaker, something observed in reality which your BS magical universal down doesn't account for.)
Let's use two scenarios of dying.
Sure, just use 2 simple scenarios, while ignoring the multitude of other options.
How about a third:
3 - You had a heart attack.
(a) you can choose to do nothing and let the person die.
(b) Or you can call an ambulance, have them arrive in time and take the person to a hospital were they make a full recovery and go on to live for decades more.
Option a is the natural way, option b is saving their life.
And considering your option 2, lets also go for option 4:
4 - you have a disease, which doesn't kill you, but causes you to be in quite severe pain, and there is no cure, and in order for pain medication to stop the pain, it will only work for two weeks before the dose required becomes so large that it will kill you.
(a) Now I can let nature takes its course, having you live for 10 years in complete agony. The pain is so unbearable that you cannot work, cannot play, cannot really do anything except the bare minimum to stay alive, with you eventually dying in agony.
(b) Or I can give you pain meds, allowing you to have a relatively pleasant 2 weeks before passing away peacefully in your sleep.
The effective result of scenarios 2 and 4 are the same, but flipped.
With one option, you live relatively peacefully for a short period of time, before passing away peacefully; with the other, you have a longer life, but it is a life of pain and suffering and you die in agony.
But you would pick a different choice.
For one of these scenarios, you pick valuing the person's enjoyment so they do not suffer. In the other, you pick suffering.
You aren't choosing based upon outcome, but based upon action.
The fact that you recognise it is better to allow the person in scenario 2 to die peacefully rather than needlessly suffering, while you oppose euthanasia shows your hypocrisy and that your decisions are not based upon caring about people or anything like that.
That is, until they are brainwashed by the same sort of insane secularism that tells them that the sun they see moving around the sky is not moving around the sky but that we are moving around it.
The same "brainwashing" that tells you that when you are in a car or train or plane, that it isn't the entire world moving past you with you stationary, but it is you that is moving.
Or, if you have your way, until they are brainwashed into thinking the sun is magically projected onto a magical parabola to magically make it appear to be going under Earth, while instead it is magically circling above for no reason at all.
-
Bumbles entire world view is based upon cartoons and the latest Michael Bay movie.
-
Sure, just use 2 simple scenarios, while ignoring the multitude of other options.
How about a third:
What for? The third is identical to the first. Also, you're abdicating responsibility for a person's life by handing it over to "professionals". I started not seeing doctors as professionals when they prodded and poked for a condition that it turned out I would outgrow. Not one of them had the decency to tell me what I later found out by reading my own condition. Nor did any of them tell me that ADD is overdiagnosed, and other causes of long-term distraction are things like adjusting to frequent moves (exactly what was happening to me). So let's see, not one, but two unnecessary medicines I was taking. And then a third, Cetaphil, because my parents wanted me to be perfect and got swallowed up in the medicine craze, wanted to treat my acne. My face itched, the medicine stunk, and I dunno that I actually ever had that big a problem with acne.
But the final straw was that one day I had hives. Why? Because I had a college interview, and it was competitive and I was stressed out and didn't wanna go. I didn't eat or drink that day, and I scratched my leg like a crazy person until it turned purple. I could articulate exactly how I became sick, but the doctor couldn't tell me anything. Amateur with a god complex.
Doctors do not know how to cure a single problem. They get their money by treating symptoms temporarily. They are dealers for Big Pharma. This is precisely why I trust Jesus, not medical science. Can you imagine a worker actually committed to permanently relieving a patient? It doesn't exist in today's medicine. They all want a repeat customer, not to make it so the customer is well and truly healed.
Option a is the natural way, option b is saving their life.
The natural method is giving them an herbal supplement (aspirin thins the blood) and possibly CPR (in case it's blocked airways). You're confusing doing nothing for natural. Just as you're confusing doing too much for effective treatment. If the patient is able to leave the hospital, they have been cured. If however they are now bed-ridden and hooked up to a God-damned life support machine, all you've succeeded in doing is turning them into a zombie who will be barely alive for the next 10 to 15 years while you draw a paycheck for "keeping them alive." Nice try, asshole, but vegetative states are not life.
And considering your option 2, lets also go for option 4:
4 - you have a disease, which doesn't kill you, but causes you to be in quite severe pain, and there is no cure, and in order for pain medication to stop the pain, it will only work for two weeks before the dose required becomes so large that it will kill you.
(a) Now I can let nature takes its course, having you live for 10 years in complete agony. The pain is so unbearable that you cannot work, cannot play, cannot really do anything except the bare minimum to stay alive, with you eventually dying in agony.
(b) Or I can give you pain meds, allowing you to have a relatively pleasant 2 weeks before passing away peacefully in your sleep.
I would recommend pain meds. I would not however recommend a lethal injection. The point of medicine is that it doesn't interfere with the life or death of the patient. The drug should neither kill the patient on the spot (this goes for overdose too though) nor should it keep them alive in a "pain-free" funk for the next several years. Life is not about avoiding pain, it's about living on your terms. If the doses don't work after two weeks, you instead remove the patient from the hospital and ask if they want to seek alternative treatment. What you don't do is try to speak for the patient. If they personally want drugs even after being advised the next dose will kill them, they have the right to self-administer. Give them the bottle and send them home. The doctor does not have that kind of power. Nor do family members. Nor does anyone but the person themselves.
The effective result of scenarios 2 and 4 are the same, but flipped.
With one option, you live relatively peacefully for a short period of time, before passing away peacefully; with the other, you have a longer life, but it is a life of pain and suffering and you die in agony.
I once read an article about doctors that scared me. The writer was thinking of going into medicine. After the incident, he switched his study to alt-medicine. Basically, he had a grandma who was sick for one problem, and the doctors rather than curing it, kept finding problem after problem and doing treatment after treatment. He asked them why, and they admitted that there wasn't a good reason. They did it anyway. To use analogy, this is like getting your oil changed for a car, and having them swap out the engine and the alternator. And then never give you the car back. Can you honestly say they've fixed the car at that point?
But you would pick a different choice.
You don't even begin to understand my choice. My choice is that if we actually did preventative medicine, all of this would be moot. Eat right, exercise at least occasionally, and take good care of yourself. Yes, like most human beings, I don't practice what I preach. But I've told my loved ones repeatedly that I don't like or trust hospitals. When it's my time to go, that's it. This isn't about me being apathetic toward helping others. This is about me genuinely distrusting the sort of "help" medical personnel gives. The outcome is usually either heavy-handed death sentence or trying to milk them for all they are worth. I have less than $2000 in bank and no-insurance. I want to be left alone by people in silly masks.
The fact that you recognise it is better to allow the person in scenario 2 to die peacefully rather than needlessly suffering, while you oppose euthanasia shows your hypocrisy and that your decisions are not based upon caring about people or anything like that.
Euthanasia is murder. Period. It's not okay for cats. It's not okay for humans. The same drugs used to euthanize a cat are used for murderous criminals. What did Fluffy ever do? Oh wait, he assumed that he was dealing with a kind master who valued his life. "Now Fluffy has a limp. (It's harder to care for Fluffy) Let's put him down." No, the cat wants to live. When the cat wants to stop living, the cat will stop eating and drinking, and sleep all the time. And it doesn't matter that humans can talk. Supporters of euthanasia will ignore their wishes, reasoning that all people want to avoid pain.
Miss Kitty slept alot more from 15 onward, but she lived until right before 20. She wandered in and out of doors up until her last days, when she finally slowed down, completely blind, tired, and worn out. She had had a good life from us adopting her as a little kitten to some potty training for litter bags, to moving to a new town, to some near misses where we thought she'd been hit by a car and then came later that day. She died one day, after we had to keep switching her food because she wasn't eating and it got stale. At that point, it hurt her to walk. It was painful to watch. But we cared after her as best we could. We removed a tumor from her (she was a zombie for awhile, walking around super-dizzy, smelling kinda weird, and puking alot), but the surgery on her eye turned out to be unnecessary. After she couldn't see, it wasn't much longer. She died, sleeping in her bed, sitting on the couch as I watched She-Ra right next to her. I picked her up to walk her around, and realized that rigor mortis had set in. We buried her in the yard, and gave her a gravestone. This was right prior to COVID-19, and everyone was happy to keep non-vaxxers tortured in their homes or give people a potentially lethal drug that hadn't been tested fully. This is the ruinous bullshit that comes of trusting science and medicine.
And when you die in agony, you blame God. Instead of rightly assigning blame to corrupt health officials that love money more than people.
That is, until they are brainwashed by the same sort of insane secularism that tells them that the sun they see moving around the sky is not moving around the sky but that we are moving around it.
The same "brainwashing" that tells you that when you are in a car or train or plane, that it isn't the entire world moving past you with you stationary, but it is you that is moving.
Did you actually say that cars don't move, but rather they move the entire world? :points and stares: You do understand that it is possible to tell at an amusement park whether you are riding a ride or watching a ride, right? Why would you think that it's some sort of brainwashing that people can trust their own senses?
-
What for?
To show options.
The third requires medical intervention. It isn't simply stopping an accident from occurring as was the case for a ladder.
If you hate interfering with nature, that means you do nothing and let the person die their "natural death".
So which do you pick?
Doctors do not know how to cure a single problem.
Doctors cure lots of problems, but they don't know how to cure everything.
You are just spouting more paranoid BS.
As people will inevitably live and get sick from something again, there is no need to continue dragging a patient along to get repeat customers.
That is like suggesting mechanics never fix problems with a vehicle. Instead they just treat a symptom so you need to keep on paying them.
It is insanity.
The natural method is giving them an herbal supplement
Which would either do nothing, or be a medication.
Medication is not supernatural.
So the "natural" method in this context, to distinguish it from artificial, is to do nothing and let them die.
If you start giving them medicine, even if they are just herbal supplements, or treating them in any way, you are not letting nature takes its course.
Nice try, asshole, but vegetative states are not life.
The asshole here is you, completely strawmanning my scenario.
The options are you do nothing, letting nature takes its course and the person dies, or you intervene, and they make a full recovery.
So which do you pick? Nature and let them die, or intervene and let them live with a complete recovery?
There is no living in a vegetative state in this scenario.
I would recommend pain meds. I would not however recommend a lethal injection.
You mean you will deflect and avoid giving an actual answer, because you know that doing so will expose your hypocrisy.
What you don't do is try to speak for the patient.
I'm not trying to.
Euthanasia is quite different from murder.
If the doctor decides it will be best for the patient to die and kills the patient then that is murder.
If the patient decides the pain is too much and they want that pain gone, even if it means death, and is given the choice of taking pain meds which will kill them, and they choose that, and the doctor administers it, it is not murder, it is not speaking for the patient.
If they personally want drugs even after being advised the next dose will kill them, they have the right to self-administer. Give them the bottle and send them home.
Why? Why can't the doctor administer it?
If you think the doctor doesn't have that power, why should the doctor be allowed to give the patient something that will kill them?
All you are doing is pathetically trying to avoid the tough decisions.
Either way, the doctor either does something that directly contributes to their death or the doctor does nothing and the patient is in agony.
I once read an article about doctors that scared me.
Considering all the crap you spout and the paranoid BS you believe, that isn't surprising.
I suspect like so much of the other crap you like it is heavily misrepresenting reality.
You don't even begin to understand my choice. My choice is that if we actually did preventative medicine, all of this would be moot.
Just like before, your "choice" is to avoid making a choice because you know how much of a hypocrite it makes you.
If you actually cared about suffering, you would not be opposing euthanasia like you do.
And if you went the other way and valued keeping life going at all costs, you would be promoting keeping people alive, even if they remain in agony.
But regardless, even that cop-out doesn't work.
We can't prevent all diseases.
You also yet again show your hypocrisy. Preventative medicine is a lot like what happened with your fantasy writer's grandma.
It involves checking for conditions before they become a problem, and often before they become symptomatic, and treating them before it is "too late".
Euthanasia is murder. Period.
No, it isn't.
And if you truly thought that way, then you should also think that letting someone die when you can prevent it is murder. That following a DNR or pulling the plug is murder.
There is also no need to bring up animals, where it is unclear what they want. Stick to humans were it is clear in cases of Euthanasia that they want to die.
Supporters of euthanasia will ignore their wishes
You sure do love spouting pure BS don't you?
Does your dishonesty know any bounds?
And when you die in agony, you blame God.
Why would I blame the imaginary POS you worship?
It isn't real, so it couldn't do anything.
But if you think it exists, then you should blame it.
Did you actually say that cars don't move, but rather they move the entire world?
No.
I was pointing out the stupidity of your statement, by providing a comparison.
If you want to tell if it is Earth or the sun moving, you need precise instruments, which show that the Earth is moving.
If you want to say that because we see the sun move relative to us it means the sun must be moving, then that is as stupid as saying that when you are sitting in a car driving down a highway, because you see the ground moving relative to you, it must mean the ground is moving.
You do understand that it is possible to tell at an amusement park whether you are riding a ride or watching a ride, right? Why would you think that it's some sort of brainwashing that people can trust their own senses?
And just what magic do you use to tell if you are moving?
Say you are knocked unconscious, and wake up inside a vehicle, where it appears the ground is moving relative to the vehicle.
What do you do to determine what is moving?
What is it actually detecting?
How fast do you need to be "moving" in order to detect it?
As for trusting senses, because people so often misinterpret what their senses are telling them they cannot be relied upon 100%.
Just look at all the optical illusions that exist.
A simple example of where you can't always trust your senses is motion. In terms of the sun, you are observing relative motion. That observation cannot tell you which object is moving.
-
What do I pick? I pick giving them first aid myself (which unfortunately, I never got certified in). I also give them a grapefruit and some ginger & garlic tea. It turns out all sorts of statins interfere with grapefruits. But grapefruits are naturally good for the heart, its strong acid acting a as blood thinner. So you make unnatural drugs that interfere the ability of natural medicine doing its job, and you tell me western medicine is heading in the right direction. Natural is not doing nothing. The Tao te Ching mentions people who talk about a field going wild, and explain that this is not what we mean by natural. If you own a field, you tend to it. Nor is it waiting 45 minutes (we live in the country, calling 911 would be the same as doing nothing), and then having them live the rest of their life on life support. I probably would ger arrested by the medical community for causing this death by unlicensed alt-medicine, but I would try to do something. Waiting for 911 in the country is pretty much rhe same as doing nothing.
We have neighbors, they goto the hospital, they come back home, whatever that's their choice. It ceases to be their choice if the doctor instead of treating them, turns them into a cash cow, and they never get to come home.
As for the resr of it, I got a 503, and had to delete it, so whatever.
-
Funny how you distrust the entirety of the world medical profession just because you had acne as a kid.
-
Hey Bulm, do you have any kids?
I have a theory that involves Darwin, im hoping it holds up.
-
kids?
i wonder if he knows how to put on pants!
does he put his shoes on first and then fight and struggle to get the pants on after?
-
Hey Bulm, do you have any kids?
I have a theory that involves Darwin, im hoping it holds up.
I have nephews and nieces. I don't have a girlfriend, and am likely not interested in one. Even if I was, I would be celibate, involuntarily or not. I have an aversion to physical intimacy, and as you may have noticed, I tend not to be socially very popular. So the world and me are in agreement that I shouldn't have kids.
But you shouldn't trust Darwin on such things as survival of the fittest. Darwin was not one of the fittest. Scarlet fever, eczema, extreme fatigue, balding, and even mouth sores. Perhaps the reason he was so fixated on "fitness" was that he personally lost the genetic lottery.
https://daily.jstor.org/charles-darwin-was-one-sick-dude/
Mentally or physically. Eugenics is a sign of sociopathy, valuing people only for what they can provide, then demanding they be removed if they are "unfit". Only a very sick mind could come up with that. Healthy people have a healthy sense of kindness to others. This man was psychologically broken.
https://www.icr.org/article/was-charles-darwin-psychotic-study-his-mental-heal/
https://www.jesusisprecious.org/evolution_hoax/charles_darwin.htm
And apparently he has the blood of little kids on his hands.
Abortion? Based on the ideas that defects shouldn't be spread through the population.
He also inbred with his cousin, meaning he personally introduced bad traits to his heirs by marrying too closely.
Charles Waring Darwin, born in December 1856, was the tenth and last of the children. Emma Darwin was aged 48 at the time of the birth, and the child was mentally subnormal and never learnt to walk or talk. He probably had Down syndrome, which had not then been medically described.
-
I have nephews and nieces.
Oh thank god.
Would hate to think of more kids living without parents because daddy believed citrus fruit cures infections.
-
What do I pick? I pick giving them first aid myself (which unfortunately, I never got certified in).
So you choose to violate the natural way to try and prevent their natural death. This is no better than calling a doctor to do the same, but with more reliable medication/techniques.
So you make unnatural drugs that interfere the ability of natural medicine doing its job
None of our drugs are supernatural.
A lot of them are natural products, i.e. products found in plants.
Some are extracted from plants, others are produced in a lab.
Some are derivatives of those natural products to make them better.
There is nothing magical about giving people plants.
There is no magical natural medicine which is magically better than other medicine.
As for the resr of it, I got a 503, and had to delete it, so whatever.
That simply means it is too long.
Eugenics is a sign of sociopathy, valuing people only for what they can provide, then demanding they be removed if they are "unfit". Only a very sick mind could come up with that. Healthy people have a healthy sense of kindness to others. This man was psychologically broken.
So I guess you think your god is not healthy and instead is psychologically broken?
What you are describing only works if you are discussing artificial selection.
He was discussing nature. Where it is almost a tautology. Those more capable of producing viable offspring which go on to produce their own will be more likely to have their genetics represented in later populations.
Those less capable, for whatever reason, will be less likely to.
Abortion? Based on the ideas that defects shouldn't be spread through the population.
No, based upon the crazy idea that people should have a choice how their body is used.
He also inbred with his cousin, meaning he personally introduced bad traits to his heirs by marrying too closely.
Religious (Christian) nutters should really avoid speaking out against incest, considering how much of it is in the Bible, including by God's chosen people.
-
Hey Bulm, do you have any kids?
I have a theory that involves Darwin, im hoping it holds up.
I have nephews and nieces. I don't have a girlfriend, and am likely not interested in one. Even if I was, I would be celibate, involuntarily or not. I have an aversion to physical intimacy, and as you may have noticed, I tend not to be socially very popular. So the world and me are in agreement that I shouldn't have kids.
But you shouldn't trust Darwin on such things as survival of the fittest. Darwin was not one of the fittest. Scarlet fever, eczema, extreme fatigue, balding, and even mouth sores. Perhaps the reason he was so fixated on "fitness" was that he personally lost the genetic lottery.
https://daily.jstor.org/charles-darwin-was-one-sick-dude/
Mentally or physically. Eugenics is a sign of sociopathy, valuing people only for what they can provide, then demanding they be removed if they are "unfit". Only a very sick mind could come up with that. Healthy people have a healthy sense of kindness to others. This man was psychologically broken.
https://www.icr.org/article/was-charles-darwin-psychotic-study-his-mental-heal/
https://www.jesusisprecious.org/evolution_hoax/charles_darwin.htm
And apparently he has the blood of little kids on his hands.
Abortion? Based on the ideas that defects shouldn't be spread through the population.
He also inbred with his cousin, meaning he personally introduced bad traits to his heirs by marrying too closely.
Charles Waring Darwin, born in December 1856, was the tenth and last of the children. Emma Darwin was aged 48 at the time of the birth, and the child was mentally subnormal and never learnt to walk or talk. He probably had Down syndrome, which had not then been medically described.
.......and what all that got to do with anything?
-
Penguins are amongst the most disgusting creatures in the world. They will f&#k anything with a hole, including chicks or dead animals. They are also blood thirsty and will kill anything they don't like without remorse.
- i like penguins! thats mean!!!!!!!
also i went there and they didnt try to shag me :( im not even good enough for a penguin :( any other incels on here?? looking to make some likeminded friends xxx
-
Hey Bulm, do you have any kids?
I have a theory that involves Darwin, im hoping it holds up.
I have nephews and nieces. I don't have a girlfriend, and am likely not interested in one. Even if I was, I would be celibate, involuntarily or not. I have an aversion to physical intimacy, and as you may have noticed, I tend not to be socially very popular. So the world and me are in agreement that I shouldn't have kids.
With this list of incel attributes I would trust Darwin before I trusted you.